national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] thpray ll be fered our chather co apla cnroy: lets p go of merc we ge anks for giving us ano ay. at theinng of day ray tha ovence gnation natidevy beli his or your sp, enablehe members ohis people house faifupeornce oheir reonlities. hp th to man wor satction their sse of rpose. rehen thhen it

ff taccept what cno be avoid tand endlo and resignao o tn thatou caus tm in truth, weo seth e picturrow are alrted your prence us o tst in y which we aiwe already do. mayll tt don be for your gat hr n theaker:he cha has amined tournal of th nounceto e house his provalreof. ursuant to clause 1 pled olegiance will iin, ms.sckosky.n fm ss soy i as plee legicethe o e ic wch it merica an snds, o nn under god, disie,itliberty an ice r l.

the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today because the constitution is under attack by a president who has never respected the second amendment. mr. russell: gun ownership is a fundamental right of law-abiding americans. the supreme court affirmed this right in 2010 and yet this week the president issued new executive actions that are unconstitutional and a clear abuse of power. there is no question that we must stop senseless acts of violence. but violating the constitution is not the answer. criminals are criminals because they break the law. mr. mullin: more laws won't keep guns out of criminals' hands. let's let law enforcement do their job and enforce the laws we already have.

let's let law enforcement address the root cause of the violence. let's look at what's causing it like radicalism and mental illness. i have no doubt that the president's latest actions will be challenged in court and i'll do everything in my power to protect oklahoma's rights and the rights of all americans. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will remind members from refrain in engaging in personalities toward the president. policies or official actions. they may not engage in personal attacks. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? ms. schakowsky: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: last year volkswagen was caught defrauding its customers selling vehicles that emitted 40 times more pollution than is allowed by law, and in it's

so-called clean diesel models. v.w. models paid extra for vehicles they believed were both cleaner and better performing on the market. that's not what they got. they have a right to join class action lawsuits to recoup their losses and hold v.w. accountable. but the fairness in class action litigation act which we will consider today would weaken the ability of those customers to pursue class action claims. in the case of v.w. it would limit classes to people with the same vehicle model, same emissions cheating device and system even though all clean diesel customers were defrauded in the same way. it would shrink the class sizes and make it easier for v.w. to defeat or settle claims. why would we make it easier for v.w. to avoy responsibility by making harder for americans to pursue justice? it's shameful that congressional republicans are trying to do volkswagen's bidding by weakening the rights their constituents currently have. i urge my colleagues to join me

in opposing this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the distinguished career of dr. gregory eastwood. i'm incredibly privileged to be joined here today by dr. eastwood and his wonderful family. celebrated throughout our entire region for his commitment to service, dr. eastwood first served as president of the state university of new york, up state medical university, from 1993 to 2006. the longest in the history of the institution and all sitting presidents on sunni campusings. he returned to the -- suny campuses. he returned in 2013 when the campus was in need of his leadership. he's served our community for years with distinction holding leadership rolls and partnering with many different organizations in the region. he advanced an aggressive division for the suny upstate

hey abouts grown through the establishment of the health care septre, and the children's hospital. a clinician, scholar, educator, community leader, and author dr. eastwood has had a remarkable career. today i want to thank dr. east wood for his excellence, professionalism, caring presence and commitment to suny university and central new york. mr. katko: our community is stronger now because of your work. we'll sorely miss you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday this house unfortunately passed a bill to basically repeal the affordable care act and do away with funding for planned parenthood. i know the president will veto that bill and i want to thank him in advance. in tennessee, 236,000 people signed up for the affordable care act. that's 236,000 people who, if the bill becomes law, will not

have health care or more expensive health care. nationally, 11 million people signed up. those people won't have it. or have more expensive health care. and if you stop planned parenthood, you stop poor people, many of whom are in my district, from getting preventive health care. mammograms, h.i.v. testing, planned birth control programs. this was a bad bill against the people of our country and taking away health care from people who need it, otherwise can't afford it is, otherwise wouldn't get it. thank you, mr. president. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. jolly: thank you, mr. speaker. we heard a lot of talk this week about improving security in our communities. one way we can do that as a country is to stand shoulder to shoulder with our law enforcement officers. just as they get our back each day, let us get theirs.

tomorrow is law enforcement appreciation day. we can show our appreciation in this house by bringing up and passing legislation i have introduced called the thin blue line act. now with over 50 co-sponsors on both sides of the capitol. it simply gives propertyors and judges greater flexibility to impose enhanced penalties on those who do harm to law enforcement officers. law enforcement officers each year are subject to over 50,000 assaults on them. 15,000 with injuries. and 150, unfortunately, leading to law enforcement deaths. the thin blue line act says very simply, if you take the life of a law enforcement officer, be prepared to lose your own. mr. speaker, let's stand with law enforcement officers today and each day in this house. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? >> i rise to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for ne minute.

mrs. lawrence: mr. speaker, i rise today to applaud the president -- president's executive orders to curb gun violence and urge my colleagues to take the action needed to address this deadly plague. i rise today in honor of more than 300 lives lost to gun violence in detroit, a city i represented just in 2015. that's nearly as many lives as we have days in the year. we have failed to take meaningful action. we must pass legislation to support the president's executive action. we have heard a lot of dialogue this week. if you don't like the executive actions, then congress rise and let's take action needed. we can no longer sit on the deline and allow this plague and this horrific violence in

our country to continue. we must take action now before another day pass and another innocent life is destroyed. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of every american's second amendment rights. the recent announcement by president obama to unilaterally enact gun control laws once again shows his complete lack of leadership and complete disregard for americans' fundamental rights. mr. carter: the president should be working with congress to enact legislation not creating executive orders because things don't work out his way. the fact is that the president's executive actions would not have prevented a single mass shooting over the past several years. one of the main underlying causes of many of these shootings was mental illness, and i will be the first to agree we should dedicate efforts to address mental

illness in this country. however, directing millions of dollars in new investment for mental health care is not the role of the president. this is the role for congress. if our founding fathers wanted to restrict the right to bear arms, they would have written it into our constitution. if our founding fathers wanted an executive fiat government, they would have created one. i call on my colleagues, both democrats and republicans, to stand up for this institution and protect what our founding fathers fought and died for. a republic, elected by the people, for the people. a country that is not controlled by one man but by many. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to

recognize the second congressional district's farm families of the year. each year the florida barm furrow recognizes families across north florida for their commitment to farming and our community. these families work hard every day to provide food for our tables, but just as importantly, they know farming is more than a job. it's a way of life. and a part of our heritage. our farm families are the backbone of north florida and recognizing them with this award is just one thing we can do to show how much we appreciate their hard work and sacrifice. ms. graham: i look forward to recognizing them and highlighting their work as i begin the first official north florida farm tour. i will be visiting allle 14 counties in my district. again, congratulations to our farm families of the year and thank you to all of our state's

farmers. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from northern california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, while the federal government focused to my constituents in the west appears to be reprosecuting rampers for a small range land fire or disarming americans from protecting themselves, federal agents focused on homeland security yesterday bagged two iraqi refugees in sacramento and houston with ties to recent travel to syria to aid or seek to fight alongside islamic state. mr. speaker, as we will hear from the president here on this floor in the state of the union next week, i hope his focus will be on a migrant or refugee program that secures our borders not a gun agenda that

makes americans more defenseless. with san bernadino, california, being so fresh in our minds and that terrorism activity there, let's heed the words of texas governor abbott and other states that are clamoring for a more effective vetting process before we bring more migrants into this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1927. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to the house resolution 581 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1927. the chair appoints the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1927, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend title 28, united states code, to improve fairness in class

action litigation. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize myself for such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. i rise today in support of a bill that combines two important reforms, the fairness in class action litigation act and the furthering asbestos claim transparency act, or the fact act. let me first explain why my colleagues should support the fairness in class action litigation. a company surveyed companies in 20 companies and found 80% of

those that were subject to a class action company were u.s. companies, putting those u.s. companies at a distinct disadvantage when competing with companies worldwide. but the problem of overbroad class actions doesn't just affect u.s. companies. it affects consumers in the united states who are forced into lawsuits they don't want to be in. how do we know that? we know that because the median rate at which consumer class action members take the compensation offered in a settlement is an incredibly low .023%. that's right. only the tiniest fraction of 1%, less than one quarter of 1% of class action members even bother to claim the compensation awarded them. that's clear proof that vastly large numbers of class members are satisfied with the product they purchased, don't want compensation and don't want to be lumped into a gigantic class action lawsuit. just recently a california

judicial decision reported that in a class action consisting of only two, people, only two of those 230,000 wanted the coupons offered in the class action settlement. the judge in that case said that the case produced, quote, absolutely no benefit really to anybody, end quote. so where is all the money going in these cases? to the lawyers who brought the lawsuits that hardly anyone wanted to be in. in another case, the district court had refused to certify the class because most of the class members hadn't experienced any problems with the product, but then the ninth circuit court of appeals reversed, holding that proof of the manifestation of a defect is not a prerequisite to class certification. and yet another -- in yet another case when the seventh circuit court of appeals allowed the certification of an overbroad class action, it had to subsequently throw out the resulting settlement, stating

the district court approved a class action settlement that is inequitable, even scandalous, because the relatively few class members who were actually injured ended up claiming less than 2% of what the trial lawyers got the district judge to say was warranted based on the overbroad size of the class. trial lawyers work the system today in the following way. they file lawsuits, for example, against the company that sells a washing machine. some of those washing machines don't work the way they're supposed to, but most of them do, but the lawyers file a class action lawsuit that includes everyone who ever purchased a washing machine from the company. even the large number of people who are completely satisfied with their purchase. when trial lawyers lump injured noncomparable injured and noninjured people into the same lawsuit, the limited resources of the parties are wastefully spent weeding through hundreds of thousands of class members in order to find those with

actual or significant injuries. that's money that could have been spent compensating deserving victims. sometimes, because judges don't separate the injured from the noninjured in class actions early enough in the proceedings, they end up throwing out settlements because it turns out hardly any one of the class members were harmed and didn't want compensation. other times when judges realize they've created an overbroad class, they justify their actions by coming up with novel theories to provide some compensation to people who are entirely satisfied with the product and don't want compensation. either way, the solution is to direct judges to determine as best they can early in the proceedings which proposed class members are significantly and comparablely injured and those who aren't and treat them coordinately. that's fair to everyone. the purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of

evaluating like claims, not to have lawyers artificially inflate the size of a class to get a larger settlement themselves and in the process increase the price of goods and services for everyone. claims seeking monetary relief for a personal injury or economic loss should be grouped in classes in which those who are the most injured receive the most compensation. no one should be forced into a class action with other uninjured or minimally injured members only to see their own compensation reduced. the class action -- the fairness in class action litigation act would simply make clear what currently should be clear to the federal courts, namely, that uninjured class members are incompatible for rule 23-b's requirement that common claims predominate a class action. here is the full text of the fairness in class action litigation act. along with quotes from the supreme court that show how the

bill's text codifies existing supreme court precedent. the bill simply provides that no federal court shall certify any proposed class seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss unless the party seeking to maintain such a class action affirmatively demonstrates such a class action that each proposed class member suffered the same type and scope of injury as the named class representative or representatives and that an order issued under rule 23-c-1 under the rules of civil proir that certifies a -- procedure that certifies an economic loss shall include a determination based on a rigorous analysis of the evidence presented that the requirement in subsection a of this section is satisfied. that's it. one page. fair rules, common sense and wholly consistent with supreme court precedent. please join me in supporting this bill on behalf of consumers everyone where. the fact act is also simple,

fair reform we should all support. this legislation helps asbestos victims who must look to the bankruptcy process to seek redress for their or their loved one's injuries. too often, by the time asbestos victims assert claims for compensation, the bankruptcy trust formed for their benefit has been diluted by fraudulent claims, leaving these victims without their entitled recovery. fraud is able to exist because of the excessive lack of transparency plaintiffs firms have forced on the asbestos trust system. under the current bankruptcy code, plaintiff's firms are granted a statutory veto right over debtors' chapter 11 plans that seek to restructure asbestos liabilities. plaintiff's firms have exploited this lverage to obtain trust rules that prevent information contained within the trust from seeing the light of day. the predictable result has been a growing wave of claims of

fraud. it has caused many asbestos bankruptcy trusts to reduce recoveries paid to asbestos victims who emerge following the formation of trusts. the fact act, introduced by congressman farenthold, combats this fraud by introducing long-needed transparency into the system. first, it requires asbestos trust to file quarterly reports on their public bankruptcy dockets. these reports will contain basic information about demands to the trust and the basis for payments made by the trusts to claimants. second, the fact act requires asbestos trusts to respond to information requests about claims asserted against and the basis for payments made by the asbestos trusts. these measures are carefully designed to increase transparency while providing claimants with sufficient privacy protection. to accomplish these goals, the bill leverages privacy protections contained elsewhere

in the bankruptcy code and includes additional safeguards to preserve claimants' privacy. we cannot allow fraud to continue reducing recoveries for future asbestos victims. i thank mr. farenthold for introducing the fact act to combat fraud and urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i yield myself three minutes -- five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. r. conyers: members of the house, i rise in strong position to h.r. 1927, the so-called fairness in class action litigation and furthering asbestos claims transparency act. i oppose the legislation because it cleverly shields corporate wrong doers by making

it more difficult for those who have been harmed by their actions from obtaining justice and allows these wrongdoers to further victimize their victims. is g h.r. 1927's many flaws the fact that this legislation will have the effect of denying individuals access to justice and threatening victims of corporate wrongdoing, all in the name of protecting the powerful. section 2 of h.r. 1927 will make it virtually impossible for victims of corporate wrongdoing to obtain relief through class actions in cases seeking monetary relief by requiring a party seeking class certification to show that every potential class member

suffered the same type and scope of injury at the certification stage. and you know that's going to be difficult. it is to the as realization that class actions are very difficult to pursue. under current procedure, the courts strictly limit the grounds by which a large group of plaintiffs may be certified as a class, including the requirement that their claims raise common and factual legal questions and that the class representatives claims are typical as those of the other class members. so rather than improving upon this class certification process, h.r. 1927 imposes requirements that are almost impossible to meet, effectively undermining the use of class actions.

and so finally, section 3 of 1927 gives asbestos defendants the very entities whose products injured millions of americans new weapons with which to harm their victims. section 3 requires a bankruptcy asbestos trust to report on the court's public case docket which is then made available on the internet, the name and exposure history of each asbestos victim who receives payment from such trust as well as the basis of any payment made to the victim. and as a result, the confidential personal information of asbestos claimants, including their names and exposure history, -- be irretreively irretrievablely released into

the public domain. think of thieves, such as insurers, potential employers, lenders could do with this sensitive information. and so essentially the bill revictimizes asbestos victims by exposing their private information to the public information that has absolutely nothing to do with compensation for asbestos exposures. and this explains why asbestos victims rigorously opposes this legislation as an assault against their privacy interests. and so in sum, 1927 is a seriously flawed bill that only benefits those who cause the harm to others. not surprisingly, the white house has appropriately issued a veto threat, stating that the administration strongly opposes

house passage of h.r. 1927 because it would impair the enforcement of important federal laws, constrain access to the courts and needlessly threaten the privacy of asbestos victims. and for all these reasons, i urge that this house oppose h.r. 1927 and, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. marino: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman goodlatte. i rise today in support of the fact act. as chairman of the subcommittee on regulatory reform, commercial, and antitrust law, i have examined this piece of legislation for over the past year.

we held hearings on the bill and solicited views from experts and victims alike. i heard many of the same concerns that we are hearing this morning. however, my own conclusion is that the fact act is a sound and necessary bill. by preventing fraudulent claims, the fact act protects asbestos victims and ensures viability of asbestos bankruptcy trust for the unknown victims yet to come. claims that the bill hurts the victims are false. to the contrary, it would be a disservice to the victims themselves to permit certain bad actors to raid the trust funds and line their pockets in the process as companies that used asbestos filed bankruptcy, the trust funds were created in recognition that victims must be compensated. any measure that preserves these funds is clearly pro-victim. some critics contend that the

bill violates victim privacy by requiring disclosure of certain information. we examined this specific issue during our hearings and it could not be farther from the truth. this bill provides protections that are absent in state tort cases where court dockets and the personal information of plaintiffs are part of the public record. section 2 of the fact act simply requires the claimant's name and description of their exposure history. it then explicitly states that any disclosure does not include any confidential medical records or the claimant's social security number. it is important to note what might be missed here. the fact act amends the bankruptcy code. and by doing this, it incorporates the existing privacy protections therein that permit the bankruptcy judge to issue protective

orders when disclosure of information would create, quote, an undue risk of identity theft or other unlawful injury, end quote. this is a sound and pertinent piece of legislation. i would like to thank chairman goodlatte and my colleague from texas, mr. farenthold, for bringing it to the floor. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, it's my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. conyers, i appreciate the time. these bills are basically chamber of commerce week in the united states congress. that's what we have come down to is the chambers of commerce who represents the large corporations who would be the defendants in these actions by

and large and consist of the people that produce the asbestos, they are part of it, too. it will give you an opportunity to not have to pay out damages to victims, victims where class actions are successful but would make it more difficult to be successful. and people who have been victims of asbestos injuries. mezz they'lloa being the ultimate disease that kills people from exposure to asbestos. on the other side of the chamber of commerce, my friends on the other side, are people on this side and certain groups of. i want to tell you who folks are against the bill. the naacp, the leadership conference on civil and human rights, often called the conscience of the congress. the american federation of state, county, and municipal employees. consumers union. the american bar association. and we have heard about how

lawyers are doing this and lawyers are doing this. lawyers on both sides of cases. the american bar association. americans for financial reform. public citizen. the southern poverty law center. the national disability rights network. and the asbestos disease awareness organization. the abests to disease awareness organization is the voice of the victims and they are against this and i have to be against it because i stand with the victims and for justice. what's fair for people who have been harmed by corporate wrongdoing. i rise to tell a personal story. one of my best friends was a man named warren. he was a singer and songwriter. somewhere along the line he was exposed to asbestos and he died in september, 2003, of mesothelioma.

but for asbestos and him being exposed to it in some manner, he would be with us today and would have been with us for the last 12 years giving us entertainment and songs and maybe songs about some of the things that have been going down here. one of his last songs i was in the house when the house burned down. it wasn't this house, but it could have been this house. and this house is the people's house and should be looking out for victims and people who should get compensation in courts. when we travel internationally, one of the things we find is that people revere our justice system. they look to america for justice and open court system that they don't have in their own nations. and these bills would close the door on justice and close the door on the courts, and that is not what america is about and that's not why we are respected internationally. i respectfully ask we oppose these bills and vote no. support the victims. support justice. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan

reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, it's my pleasure to recognize a distinguished member of our committee, mr. johnson, for 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. johnson: i thank the ranking member. good morning, mr. speaker. rise in opposition to h.r. 1927, section 3, the fairness -- so-called fairness in class action litigation act of 2015. which is actually the text of h.r. 526, the furthering asbestos claim transparency or the fact act. t's a fact that the koch brothers, probably sitting at

home with their fingers crossed watching these debates hoping that -- and feeling confident that this will pass because they know when it passes it's going to help them. how does it help them? well, they are the ones who manufactured or acquired the companies that manufactured the asbestos. and this asbestos everybody knows now hurts people. so when people are hurt, they deserve to be able to go into a court of law and establish their claim and seek just compensation for their victimization by that company. what this legislation does is to put its ugly hand on the scale of justice in favor of the manufacturers of this dangerous product, and also

their insurance companies. put the ugly hand on that scale, weighs it down in favor of those companies. and so all of them are looking upon us now hoping that we do what they would like for us to do. but please note that not everybody's going to go along with this. there are some who stand with victims who deserve a day in court. and they deserve when they go to court to not have to be subjected to the public release of their very private and sensitive information. their medical information. there should not be any kind of registry like a gun registry established. this is a registry we should actually call it asbestos death database, which would allow these insurance companies and producers, manufacturers of

death to have access to people's personal information so that they could use it against them when they file claims. that's what this bill is all about. i would ask that my colleagues understand the true purpose and vote no on this act. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, the chief sponsor of a portion of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. farenthold: thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman goodlatte. it's my privilege to be here to speak on behalf of the fact act. just a quick oversimplified history of how the asbestos trust came into being. the manufacturers of asbestos when it became known that it product a deadly

realized that there wasn't enough assets within the company to pay all the claims. so they availed themselves of the bankruptcy laws of this contry. what the bankruptcy courts said was, look, put all of your assets into a trust to pay off the victims, and you can reorganize your company. that's how these trusts were created. so the companies are not going to be on the hook -- the ones that survived and reorganized are required have had their obligation was respect to asbestos discharged in bankruptcy. what they did to do this was they created these trusts to compensate future victims. so what's happening now is there are people who are gaming the system. multiple claims in state or federal courts. and they are going to these trusts saying, i was injured by asbestos, pay me.

which is what's supposed to happen. but you're only supposed to get compensated once for your asbestos injury. if you do multiple claims, you're taking money out of the system that would be available for future victims. diseases like mesothelioma take years to manifest themselves. what the fact act does is require these trusts to publish a very small amount of information. the name of the person who is filing the claim. the basis of their claim, i was exposed to asbestos at xyz location and developed mesothelioma. and it specifically protects their privacy by prohibiting the release of their social security number. the information that is required here is actually less information than i would be required to give if, say, mr. cohen hit me with his car. i -- if i were hit by his car i

would have to disclose my name, the nature of my injury, and a lot more information to file a suit in state court. we are not asking for any more information than is normally disclosed in any sort of litigation. and, in fact, there's specific privacy protections in the bankruptcy code that are going to protect even further than you would in a state court. this bill was written to help those veterans who were exposed toess re not masting soms. wasesign toelp all t viimthatwere - designed thep al e victimthat re poseand not y manifestingmp. we drain althmoney out ese tru, there nothg atoing to t to hp the pele who we inreter i the gilaonsntroded t hihy thinkto his ishy i urg leagues tojoine in

suppoing . i'm also happyh this bi combin wh a geapiec of legion tg ridf ahas ppeng whin an hetemcssction lats. i dotnow abou y, chrman, buty wife and ly got a hf den so noces iheil ove t arsor class,nd as a lawye ictuallit down and reatm. t ends up most of th they a offring me cou or gcertif something woh aoule dla, wle plaint attoeysetting millionof dollars. we neeto g thisystemown o whe tse whore acally injured aa resu of wtever ha haen in the cls acti g adua mpensation. d thos f who wen't inreare hay wh t ctren't- don'tet ytng becuse hey haven aed ahing, thon't tnyg, and th't

this wl simify te stem rhe c an s there is moreoney availab r seate ac inur this ieat comnation billsnurge my colleagues uprt it and yielba the mar of my te. thaire gentl yie back the gentmanrom vgini reserves. th gentlan from chigan is reized. . cyer m cirma ke to put in the recor tters fm9 vet ornizations w are totally oppo this ill. i don't -- i ask unaus nnto chaihe rueil coered und genl le m cye: i yieldo distinguthgentla fromashin, .elben 2 2 miutes. chair: the gtladfrom utes.ngton iscogn f

ms.ee: the ft acs been tas an efforto promottrspaency ades sued systemi problemf auwith asbtos trusts s up to y thos that suered from asbtos . but thiss in seah of a prlem.

a tird wave of vtims. n thee t asbest threa is trequi aosat the las cos to sclose informaon wn es pubc heal d d ve and dippintihat thas co a prtan iue. repo es to th agency. t thesbestos information acwas netimerting tert. it prhe that' why i, ong th my green introced th

ding exposure asbeos ac oe reeact,hi expandct that requies those o mture, impo or hand product btos tnnrepot infmation to the e.p.t thrronyublic location the en ent i the pa ye this infmaon we made puicly aablenline, exportosbes and centvizing connu rectionf asbs use i our tion it's nally iminate a for all. act was oerd asn amendmen to thill it wasotul oer more tnsrencyut this prodt, notless, ld theorm. . conrs: 15 secos moreo entleldy t chair the le i regned. . d: morerancy abhiseadly pt, not les shoulde the rm. imyolleagues to se

thfact act andn men wog to p trsparency at hpsher an izes those who've bn g hreakingconsequences asbes expore. ielck thhair: the gentlen mr goodlat: irn, reon eh si? is thchair: thegentleman from virginia has 14 minutes. the ntleman f mhin 16 3 minut. . e:hairn, i ontinue serv e cha: theentn from mr.os: iie to t zed. gentma califor m peters2/2 mnutes. the chair: the ntlen from california i reiz for 2 1/2 mites. petersthank you, m airman. k mr cyersor yieldg. disease cau by as a though veraepse pulat they compris

almost 1/3 oftodeaths thatoccued i th cntry. s an uommolon period o lencyf years 3 ys,hich mea at veteans retiredrom ve duecad ago are gting ck ty. militaryalons were nsit asbesos ooringwainsulation. anthames tundredof thsands of orkers and sailorsha were unknowingly expto dangero asbestos anas a r my of thos men anwometct tos-latedisases. jay patckithe nionamander of the or the purplert wrote hose leadership irect sition to this bill he stated, the ft actadds juryinst tones devaing efff asbest ime wh they

exposure. the ft t must bend to protect vera whoere posed hose dangerous country.ing the i tr nd twi. tharme for, depament of defense to avoid potent dela individuals receiving then ti nn, but the marity d t ke this commonsense mendment orderecauhey ll ainst te serious cons raised by veterans. inclu titaryrderf the ple h says i ceary, ur affects ofismedmen n t abse chairman,i urge a no von e bill and i eld back.

the chr:e entleman yld bac the gtlem from chigan reves. the ntfrnia mr. ghairn, i the cr: t gtl. esers. tenanm igans recogn. mr. conyers: mrairman, i' pleased to yie t diingsd memofr york/2 nute ffesne chathenan from 2 mut.zd mr jeffries: thk yo mr. chair, an i thank th stinguised memr f hifor ylding anal r hiefast leahip. ths a w ye with aw eaknd n promi rtan craon yet, we are he y on the usfloor d the same thsbest indusiallex ng cancer and other exotic se of maestruction on ousands of unsuecti amns, manof whom have

served th cntryn e ilitary. andete'resko legislati that willhiel he wronrsrom liability. the end ofheay, if u think aut the bill that has beensented to u, the claim dilos emadet it's out b the wronger aren' al beiskedoislose anythi fther. t clm been made about thisihat'sut ficienc. yet, e is t a n tila of -senillafvidenc wast fraud or use. the cim has been madehii ab faiess. t, athe end of the day th praccaeffect oth legisln wilbe tprevent the imom b able to e just compi trying to y, this is

fd solutio iearchf a m that doe not exist. ths messagg bill that by the president ate ican t, through the their elected reprentives he the hse, dot we business of themean ople vote know again t leslation so we cado wh he in united att to do congss. i back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. theentlemrom micga rerv e gtlemafrorginias recognized mrodlae:. chrman, th time it my easureo yie three minutes t the ntleman from mhi mr. rott, mber of the udiciary commt. chair: the gntman is coed for t mutes. r. ttt: tnkyou,r.

chrm. i suppo 192as wirin transparency to thesbestos claimsss this is an rtant gl as e ecy thurntly surrouthe processs led tobu. those who oppose the bve two aes ainassa. first, theyuggeshe lys not a fud le el wn you leave the fox in charge othe hn use, y typicay nd up prob. theacts a pettylear. a ck of transparency s low some la fis and diduals mnipulatehe ts shouldot rprise anyone. when allowne o t ultitebeneficiarieto stuctu t tstminister etho actility or ors, of courserebe abuse. seval stues, and indepeenuds at lst 10 fferentates have fd quesonable claim wait is solion, e

i say u are chsingo rinethl lawrs a victimsho hve litate ins, jues which theserve cpensatn. the second argumenagainst th bill thomomis claimts. ain, this is not true. re 900 offerditial suas. the reporting reiremen d not quire theisclosur social serity numsr medil ror. e act reres the disclre ofes inion th would beuirthe cimant wereo sa lain ate cour a vegainhibillea or ase, you d wan

lawyers linr own et you dot carebo vict legima clas best-relatedeases it's ifacunfortunate le have made this a political ise te o haveued ainst th bil i ask, who wie therand wh resours w be availableo our an when frudulen claims d mle claims h exhauste these tsts the r cntemplated in h.r. 1927ri much-needed rapay to banptcy c sectn 5-g. urge m colleagu tsupport thill,nd yield ba the chaireem yelds thealan ohis tim e gentman from virnia reserves. coized. n from michiis mr. nys: m chairman, i'm plseto rog seni membe the house judici coittee, theentlelady tex, ms. sheila jsolee, r 2 1/2 mnus. e ch theentlelfrom te recognized fo 2/2 minutes. ms. jakson lee: mr chairman thank yosoy much.

m chairmanmr. gdlatte, king mmb, mr. conys, maging thisegislation, antnyouy muchor ieldineime. many of us in cases deal with makng se our cits work andmetimes, mr. yers, they ha a one-w street and we it tord t ne-waytreet e weht thatne-waytreet.do that's trc flow. en we talkabou justic r eopl a one-way street don't becau that m on eup ople canfind justi at th and that' thi legiation es. it's a o street. only one grps victor and transparent.d to be the oth group has to be transnt they can't on the one-w street. an so ippose ts legislati becse requires th feral ass actiono th samee and same sce

inrys e me class i heard it on e loy o oudistished members sayingt'theron arm group. if you a bn ar you're the class if you h a brokeneg, do't, but c aut throh me iident. that'sn unfair and impracticalayf getng jutice for the aran people legislation is because it wld inde the privac asbestos victims by requiring the malnformation online erect warrierto victis asst ill. housds oforrs and fam membs have been expos, suered oed of asstos-relatecancer an lu dea. it oraging that th rfuse toccty. and then ould me the argument tt man usw a very drend, congrema bruce venti understd hisma be i thgaery. an t it is importt as

wehink of tsbestos lies tir famil who alize that th suered from methelia, whichongressman nto, and. and ha requested opportunty toestifyohe voeof their family memrs d be hed ts bill bushwas tnedown,nd in th lasons and to oter as viims reatedeqsted to testify on tact bt wa turned wn. etter from the beoss record patien and thfamilies s,listo us. i ask unamoonsent. e cha: the gelelady's ime s exre d that request wil covered uer nel leave. egislati. lee: i oppose is . i ask my colleagues to vte nst thchair: e gentlan fro michigan resrves the gan fm rginias recognized. .

the gentleman fm michigans recogniz. mronyer i'm honod eld to minoritlead ms. pel one min regned. the gentlady is ms. peli: you s, mr. peaker. tnthgentleman for yidi i thank him f his going championing tedge w take every da lirtanjus for. thank you, m. nyer mr. speak, last yea mked the 80 annersaf th gnin othmagna ca. 80yers ago this toried chrt first laid aasic foundation of a fair society. it wasnresting to seen the obsvance of the 800 niversar of e magna rta that theyrght ou2 chairs 1chairshere e ro

sat e theirase kin john. and those2ai represe a trial byy, 1ers. evennder a kg, te magna carta dre theawf dgmentf his pee. this mh was owed the ppl. too one will we sell, tno onll we ny or delat rightjuice. as we pe eachay n only -- just notticeor oy thful and wealthy, but lirty d juic for all. you can re wh i said and much more out juic in t magna ta, 12 theear of thgaaarta, it's pretty hrilling. 800 years agoeoe kewhat it was fdtal fothe leverage to beithhe people

d that they d ghts the roice is p of e being hearofmerica's docrac it the sword and shie ainst pcry turny ne today withiras- ery. - tyranny. today with th bil they eandin it t priviled few it's abut who hhe leverage. class acons are indisple tool for ierest and biorporions accounblfor their misdds without thty to b regravenjursndhohave egregious ngs fa a david angoli suggle fo justice. thout class aioth we andowerful can dide anconquer the victim beringamils' pleas r r re with the shear weighttheir money a

resoces. with thi bill, repcansre yeai helpingthspecial interest flten hardwog amicans. weee the sameoal ilain the repubs attackghe btos sfold io thi . as mtioneby our colleague, congresswon jackson lee, sue vento, dow of our esteem cleue, bruce vto, in their letter made a plor tm noto incle ts in thisill,but they d these visions clai tserve transparenc. ined, republicans' eort to prosbesto cies iimsbs victims could note clearer. theyrequ asolutelyo transparcy on th part of t asbestos comes. instdth invade the privacy of thousaof american many of them

veterans, e cildren i school. is isn't out sobody tangob that h risk. this is about cldren going to school d ing expose to asbd theirrac beingnvaded mo plas'll have tion tomit are that ter. makes them vnerablto harm by disclosing peal mation i public domain ov a over aain, this repubcan coress worked to stack the deck the scia interest against hdworking americans we see in cpan nanc the vois of arin -- tid tite wave wave of unlimitespecial intt spendingn our electis d compte estigny opportuni to discse li trapsu shld like disclose.

we e itn the assau o laboer republica would isl collectiaring and undne wor seeki a long deserved.at they have we see in this bill o clas acons wherrepublicans wld dey sti to millions of erics. tcourts, in e orkplaceinour in our elections, the republican congress has strengthened powerful interests and weakened hardworking americans. our founders ledge their lives, their liberty, their sacred honor to establish a government of the many. not a government of the money. this is the people's house. let us stand with the american people and opposing this appalling republican bill. with that i urge a no on the bill and yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the

gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: thank you very much. as we have been going through this debate we have entered in the record and discussions about the groups that oppose this organization -- bill. i did want to point out there are quite a few organizations, veterans organizations included that are in support of this bill, in fact it's broad base of support. the 60-plus association. air force association department of indiana. the american military society. the arizona chamber of commerce and industry. arizona manufacturers council. the civil justice association of california. coalition for common sense. cost of freedom. indiana chapter. florida chamber of commerce. florida justice reform institute. georgia chamber of commerce. hamilton county veterans. illinois chamber of congress. lawsuit reform ally avens new york. louisiana association of business and industry. the michigan chamber of commerce. the military officers association indianapolis chapter. missing in america project of indiana.

national association of manufacturers. the national black chamber of commerce. the new jersey civil justice institute. the north carolina chamber of commerce. pennsylvania chamber of commerce and business and industry. the reserve officers association department of indiana. save our veterans. the south carolina civil justice coalition. the taxpayers' protection alliance. the texas civil justice league. the cost of freedom of indiana. texas for lawsuits reform. the u.s. chamber institute for legal reform. u.s. chamber as a whole. veterans resource list. the west virginia business and industry council. west virginia chamber. wisconsin manufacturers and commerce. and importantly to me is the texan, the texas coalition of veterans organization, which is an umbrella group that represents more than 600,000 texas veterans. this bill is absolutely pro-veteran. as was pointed out on the other side of the aisle, a very large percentage of folks exposed to asbestos are veterans compared

to the general population. and under sovereign immunity, they have no one to turn to but these trusts and the manufacturers that created these trusts. it's important that we have the fact act to preserve the resources in these trusts so our veterans who are injured by asbestos and come down with mesothelioma or other asbestos related diseases have resources to compensate them for their injury. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i yield myself 15 seconds to ask are there om texas any asbestos victims organizations among that list that you recited? mr. farenthold: i don't know if any of them are asbestos

victims associations. mr. conyers: that's what i wanted to know. you have told me. thank you very much. mr. chairman, i'm pleased now to recognize mr. cartwright of pennsylvania for 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. cartwright: thank you, ranking member conyers. thank you, mr. chair. i rise this morning to add my voice to those speaking against this anti-consumer bill and to remind my colleagues, if i can, of what it is to be an american. one of the signal features of american citizenship is that we have rights. we have rights to property, to liberty, to our privacy. we have rights to be free of negligently inflicted injury and death. we have rights to be free of dangerous and defective products.

we have rights that are enforced in court. these are rights that are respected to the point that representative cohen made, around the world. people envy us our rights. our bill of rights, our full spectrum of rights. people envy us all over the world for our individual rights. but these individual rights are no good unless you can go to court and enforce them. and make no mistake, mr. chair, the people who are bringing this bill and who are behind it are the ones who routinely get hauled into court to account for causing injuries and violations of american individual rights. they are the ones behind this bill. the bill is wrong. cutting back on american individual rights is wrong, too. so i urge my colleagues, vote no on h.r. 1927. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized.

>> i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to recognize our former leader on the committee of the judiciary, mr. scott of virginia, for 1 1/2 minutes. two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to h.r. 1927, the so-called fairness in class action litigation act. in 2013, judge poser in of the seventh circuit court of appeals spoke critically of the commonality and damages requirement found in this bill in butler case. he said the fact that damages are not identical across all class members should not preclude class certification otherwise defendants would be able to escape liability for rtious harms of enormous magnitude. so as not to be remedyable in

individual suits. the court found such a requirement would strike a stake through the heart of the class action device. furthermore, mr. chair, the bill includes the so-called fact act which would have a devastating impact on workers exposed to asbestos. in the last few decades, thousands of workers in my district have been -- developed asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma because of's bests to exposure that occurred between the 1940's and 1970's. this exposure was inflicted upon many victims by corporations such as the one in new jersey court found to have, quote, made a conscious cold-blooded business decision in utter flagrant disregard of the rights of others to take no protective or remedial action. and that's the kind of business that will benefit from the bill. the victims don't want it. in the letter the ranking member will be introducing, they point out that veterans

represent 8% of the population, but 30% of the victims. and that letter points out that the fact act would mandate unnecessary public disclosure of sensitive personal information and would increase the cost of litigation thereby limiting the available pool of money to compensate the victims of those cold-blooded business decisions. mr. chairman, i would hope that we would recognize the asbestos victims have suffered too much already. therefore we should defeat this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i'm pleased now to recognize from texas the gentleman, mr. green, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the ranking member of the judiciary for yielding to me.

i rise in strong opposition to this legislation. the so-called fairness in class action litigation act an atempt by the house majority to take away america's access to the courthouse and funnish asbestos victims by requiring personal information be made public on the internet. i'm proud to represent hardworking people in the 29th district of texas. our district is the port of houston and largest petrochemical process. they are proud of the work they do in producing the oil and gas and chemicals that drive our nation's economy. we also produce a lot of sea fairers because we are the largest international port in the country. this inherently hazardous work needs to be done as safely as possible. workers in harris county and throughout our great country should not be exposed to known human carcinogens like asbestos. this is why i introduced with my colleague, susan dell ben, the read act last year. this legislation would expand

existing protections enacted under the reagan administration that would create a public database with the location of asbestos and asbestos containing products in the country. it would bring much needed transparency that known location of asbestos in our country, potentially saving thousands of americans from asbestos-related illnesses like lung cancer and mesothelioma. while helping industry reduce workers' exposure to this known carcinogen. i urge my colleagues to stand with america's working families and join me in voting against today's bill that unfairly punishes asbestos victims and denies the american people access to the justice they deserve. i yield back my time. . the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close if the other side is. mr. farenthold: that's fine. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. members of the house, this

legislation is just the latest attempt to take power away from ordinary citizens and place it in the hands of the most powerful corporations and industries in this country. whether it's by making it almost impossible for ordinary people to pursue their day in court through the important class action mechanism or threatening the privacy of asbestos victims, it's clear that h.r. 1927 does not have the interest of ordinary people in mind. and it raises a broader question of who rightfully should hold power in a representative democracy like others. politically unaccountable corporations who seek only to maximize their own profit or the people who are supposed to be sovereign. we say it is the people. and i thank you.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: thank you. and i'll yield myself such time as i may consume to close. there's been a lot of arguments we heard today for and against this bill, but i think the biggest argument for it is it preserves precious and limited resources for those who were injured by asbestos and shuts down an avenue of waste, fraud and abuse that's been exploited right now in the current system. you know, there's also been a lot of talk about veterans. folks said the fact act hurts veterans. i say it helps veterans. as i pointed out earlier, veterans cannot pursue litigation against the united states government because of sovereign immunity. so they have to rely solely on the bankruptcy claims process to get recovery. that's why a significant number of veterans groups, many of

whom i listed earlier, have written to the committee in support of the fact act. in fact, let me read you the words of john breeden, a former national commander of the american legion in letter he wrote to the hill. the fact act and its sunshine provision is strongly supported by veterans like myself who are dedicated to preserving the rapidly diminishing asbestos trust funds for all service members who have been injured by a substance we now know to be dangerous and even deadly. the best way to protect veterans in -- and other asbestos victims is to disclose information about the trust fund claim. we've got to protect the privacy in here. that's why the fact act was specifically drafted to protect the privacy of those who claim. the text of the section of the bill that deals with asbestos trusts is only 1 1/2 pages

long, but a big part of that is dedicated to privacy. the disclosures are minimal. it's the name of the person, the type of their injury. it particularly -- it particularly prohibits the disclosure of the claimant's social security number. protection is done. the settlement amounts, work history and information about the veteran's children and family is simply not in the bill. furthermore, confidential medical records and social security numbers, disclosing that information is expressly prohibited under the bill. so in summary, this legislation enacts two important reforms that will increase fairness in class action lawsuits and will introduce transparency into the asbestos trust system. given the class action lawsuits involve more money and touch more americans than any other litigation pending in our legal system, it's important we have

a federal class action system that benefits those who've been truly injured and injured in comparable ways and is fair to both plaintiffs and defendants. the fairness in class action litigation act would require that a class be composed of members with comparable injuries. the bill would thereby achieve a very important reform, clustering actually injured individuals or similarly injured class members in their own class. people who are injured deserve their own class action in which they present their uniquely powerful cases and get larger recovery -- then get the large recoveries that they deserve. under this legislation, uninjured or noncomparably injured people can join class actions but they must do so separately without taking away from the potential recovery of those who are actually injured or more significantly injured. this legislation also seeks to introduce a modest amount of

transparency into a very opaque asbestos bankruptcy system. the opponents of the fact act have offered creative and far-ranging allegations against the measure, but we know these allegations are unfounded. what we do know is that there is widespread fraud and abuse in the asbestos bankruptcy trust system because it's been documented in news reports, state and -- in bankruptcy cases and before the judiciary committee in numerous hearings on this issue. we also know that the fact act will introduce transparency to help curb this fraud and it will help asbestos victims by protecting these trust funds for those future claimants who have not yet started to show symptoms. i urge my colleagues to reject the unfounded allegations offered against today's bill and vote in support of the simple, meaningful, commonsense reforms. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired.

pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary, printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-38. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be printed in house report 114-389. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-389. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: to address the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-389 offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 581, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of my amendment which was made in order and which makes exception to h.r. 1927's required showing for class certification. claims brought by victims of a terrorist attack against the attack's perpetrators. we all agree that victims of terrorist attacks deserve justice and they should have the fullest opportunity to obtain compensation for injuries they suffered because of such attacks.

sadly, our history shows no shortage of examples of the kind of victims this amendment would help. from the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in beirut and the 1996 towers in saudi arabia and the down of the pan am plane by gaddafi, it will give them some justice from the acts committed against their family members and them. i know chairman goodlatte shares my concerns for these victims and i applaud him for a successful effort to create a compensation fund for victims of state sponsors of terrorism who get court judgments. it says those held hostage in the u.s. embassy in iran in 1979. some of these cases the victims or their survivors pursue class action against state sponsors of the terror acts. yet, under section 2 of h.r. 1927, they may not have an opportunity to pursue a class action in the first place. as noted during general debate, section 2 adds a new requirement that a named

plaintiff prove as a condition of class certification that every class member suffered the same scope of injury. not comparable but the same scope. this requirement can be read to preclude a class action where for instance one terrorist victim loses his leg while another loses his arm as a result of some terrorist attack. or maybe somebody is a direct victim of the terrorist attack but hurt in the aftermath of the attack. in short, they did not suffer the same scope of injury. i note that scope can mean the same thing as extent as the bill introduced originally stated. current rules, while requiring commonality of facts and law does not require a showing of commonality and damages as a prerequisite for certifying action. as this scope of injury standard requires. it is rare that two class members suffered the exact same scope of injury and almost impossible to prove this at the

certificatetycation stage. think about boston. some people lost a leg. some people lost a life. some people lost both legs. they couldn't be part of a class. the relevant inquiry is whether they allegedly both suffered injury as a result of the same wrongful act by the defendant. it's hard enough as it is to pursue class actions because of years of efforts by industry to make it more and more difficult. sometimes in these terrorist situations, it's a different type of defendant. it's wrong to place the heightened burdens of h.r. 1927 on terrorist victims on acts committed against them. i ask this amendment be accepted by the other side because all it does is make exception for victims of terrorism, and we all share hope victims of terror get justice and we don't put any more hurdles in the way of them successfully completing the justice for ng them and their heirs, ancestors

who might have been killed in the attacks. my amendment would offer them relief of those burdens and my hope is you will accept it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. is the gentleman from texas opposed? mr. farenthold: i do rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farnt hold: i agree that they deserve compensation -- mr. farenthold: i agree that they deserve compensation. i oppose this amendment because it denies the victims of terrorism the protections that the bill would otherwise afford them. if this amendment is adopted, it would result in less compensation for the most deserving victims in class action lawsuits. under the base bill, the most severely injured victims of terrorism would have their own day in court. and they would be compensated to the maximum extent because their entire class would consist of significantly injured members. under the base bill, the most

significantly injured will not have their compensation reduced by the cost of weeding out from the class the significantly less injured or uninjured. but if this amendment were adopted, huge numbers of uninjured or less significantly injured victims of terrorism would be allowed into the class and be able to stifen off for to selves the limit compensate those most injured. hat's not right and it's not fair, but that's what this amendment would allow. to recap, the purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of evaluating similar claims, not to provide a means of artificially inflating the size of a class to extort a larger settlement value. exempting a subset of money damages cases from the bill as this amendment would do would only serve to incentivize the creation of artificially large classes to extort larger or

unfair settlements from innocent parties for the purpose of disproportionately awarding uninjured parties. any claims seeking monetary relief for personal injuries or economic loss should be grouped into classes that are similar with the most injured receiving the most compensation. it's a fair principle that should be applied equally to the benefit of all, including terrorism victims. why should victims of terrorism be subjected to a particularly unfair treatment by being allowed to be forced into a class action with other uninjured or marginally injured members only to see their own compensation reduced? that does a disservice to those claimants. it's exactly what the amendment attempts to do. so i oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and i'll reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman has the overwhelm time remaining. mr. farenthold: i yield back.

the chair: the question son the amendment offered bay the gentleman from tennessee. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment -- mr. cohen: i would ask that the yeas and nays be responded to. apparently the four of us are not as loud. the chair: the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? r. cohen: yes, i do. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-389. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: mr. speaker, rising with the idea of introducing this amendment -- the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment? mr. cohen: i rise to ask the amendment be considered. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in house report number 114-389. offered by mr. cohen oftown

tfpblet the chair: pursuant to house resolution 581, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, and a member opposed, each will control five min -- minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. having seen the outcome of the last vote where one member of the other side and four members of this side and the vote was given to the other side, i just think that it would be best of the process if i withdrew this amendment because i can see the writing on the wall. i'm going to withdraw the amendment and hope that maybe on the floor we'll pass something that takes care of the victims of terror and see they aren't deterred by this. i would like to mention my friend warren again. he had a song "lawrence, guns, and money". i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does gentleman ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment? mr. cohen: all five of us. yes. unanimous consent the chair: without objection.

the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3, printed in house report 114-389. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in house report number 114-389. offered by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 581, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i thank the chairman. i rise, members, in support of the amendment which would exempt from section 2-a of the bill any claim for monetary relief under title 7 of the ivil rights act of 1964. title 7 prohibits discrimination and employment on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. during the subcommittee hearing

on h.r. 1927 in judiciary, i expressed a concern about the effect the bill's original language would have on civil rights claims. in particular, i was concerned that the bill applied to all class actions and that it restrictively defined injury to mean the alleged impact of a defendant's action on a plaintiff's body or property. although the bill was revised in committee to delete this definition of injury from h.r. 1927, and to limit the bill's scope to class actions seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss, i remain concerned that significant categories of civil rights cases could still be effectively precluded by this bill. plaintiffs and employment

discrimination cases that seek back pay and other monetary relief for economic loss resulting from an adverse employment decision frequently pursue class actions because such employment cases tend to be the kind that are well suited for class treatment. these cases often involve multiple victims who were subjected to the same discriminatory employment practice or policy. while damages awarded pursuant to a single plaintiff may not be large enough to deter the employer's alleged wrongdoing aggregate dangs awarded to plaintiffs as a result of a class action would have a deterrent effect. unfortunately, the bill still requires class action plaintiffs to prove at the certification stage that every

potential class member suffer the same type and same scope of injury. a requirement that's virtually impossible and cost prohibitive to me. this onerous requirement would effectively deter employment discrimination plaintiffs from proceeding with any class actions. moreover, federal rule of civil procedure 23 already imposes significant constraints on the ability of plaintiffs to pursue class actions. an employment discrimination case in wal-mart versus dukes that the supreme court gave what in my view was a cramped interpretation of rule 23's commonality requirement. making it harder for employees claiming discrimination to proceed as a class. because of my continuing

concerns with the legislation's potential effects on this important category of civil rights cases, i urge the house to adopt my amendment. and, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does the gentleman from texas rise in opposition? mr. farenthold: i do. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: i oppose this amendment. first, the base bill only applies to proposed classes, quote, seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss. insofar as civil rights cases do not seek money damages, they are completely unaffected by the substitute and would proceed just as they do today. indeed, rule 23-b-2 expressly provides for civil rights cases in which a class action can be certified when the defendant, and i'm quoting the rule, has acted or refused to act on

grounds that apply generally to the class. so the final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole, end quote. injungive relief and declaratory leaf are claims for monetary relief. now, if money damages are sought by a proposed class, then of course they should be subject to the procedures in this bill. the purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of evaluating like claims. not to provide a means for artificially inflating the size of the class to extort a larger settlement value. exempting a subset of money damages cases from the bill as this amendment would do would serve only to incentivize the creation of artificially large classes to extort larger unfair settlements for the purposes of disproportionately awarding uninjured plaintiffs. any claims seeking monetary

damages for personal injury or economic loss should be grouped into classes in which those who are most injured receive the most compensation. why should certain civil rights claimants seeking money damage under one specific statute be subject to a particularly unfair treatment by being allowed to be forced into a class action with other uninjured or minimally injured members only to see their own compensation reduced. that does a disservice to those claimants. that's exactly what this amendment would do. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i will return my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas wish to yield back? mr. farenthold: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

he amendment is not agreed to. mr. conyers: can i get a roll call vote, mr. chairman? the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-389. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. deutch: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in house report number 114-389. offered by mr. deutch of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 581, the gentleman from florida, mr. deutsch, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. deutch: thank you very much. we know the intentions behind the bill before us today, h.r. 1927. the so-called fairness in class action litigation act. the goal of this bill is to protect consumers. the goal of this bill is to wipe out class action lawsuits

and deprive consumers of the ability to ban their resources together to take large corporations to court for defective and many times dangerous products. we heard fromle many of my colleagues already today about the problems this bill creates. i agree this is a bad bill. but it's uniquely bad bill for one group in tifpblgt for gun owners. that's right. gun owners. law-abiding americans exercising their second amendment rights who suffer injury and even death when gun manufacturers sell defective and ultrahazardous weapons. every year many gun owners and innocent bystanders are killed when a firearm discharges just being set down on the ground, when a faulty safety leaves a child dead, when an experienced and safety conscious gun owner is the victim of a deadly malfunction. unique to consumer products, no federal safety agency has the authority to issue a recall of a defectively manufactured firearm. indeed, the consumer product safety commission has jurisdiction and oversight to ensure that more than 15,000

household and recreation products are safe for consumers. but thanks to years of hard work by the gun lobby, the consumer product safety commission is specifically prohibited from protecting consumers from defectively manufactured firearms. moreover, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms has the authority to license gun manufacturers but does not have the authority to recall defectively manufactured firearms. today, this bill's rigorous requirement for certifying a class would render gun owners even more powerless. currently, gun owners' only recourse in these unfortunate events is our court system. most people don't have the resources to go up against the massive titans of the gun industry. let me give you an example of the kind of class action suit that would not exist under this legislation. in 2013, a class action was filed against taurus. the claim involved a design defect in the semiautomatic pistol's trigger safety blade. let me read you a news story

from alabama. you'll hear about judy price, and experienced gun other. she said she knows them all. how to handle them safely. she speaks to people taking concealed carry classes. prices no amount of gun knowledge could have saved her from what happened in 2009. her holster fell to the floor when she was dressing, and the pistol went off with the bullet going through her groin, stomach, and liver. i looked up into his eyes, and said, paul, i'm going to die dye tonight. but i love you. close quote. incredibly she didn't die that night for about nine days it was touch and go. the lead plaintiff in this case was a sheriff, a sheriff from iowa. cris carter, a sheriff's deputy in scott county was serving on a narcotics detail and pursuing a fleeing suspect. as he ran his pistol fell from the holster, hitting the ground, discharging a bullet hitting a vehicle that was unoccupied. this case was settled and the

pistols were recalled. under this legislation it's unlikely the gun owners wronged by bad actors in the gun industry would have any recourse at all. one more example. the gun owner who took his .22 colt single action revolver with him fishing. under this bill, federal courts would only be able to hear class action suits involving a group of people if they can prove they have suffered the same type and scope of injury as the main representative. the family who lost a loved one to a bullet wound in the head due to a defective gun living in florida, would not be able to join together with a gun owner shot in the knee in oregon even if they were caused by the same defect in the same make and model of gun. it would prevent gun owners from satisfying the bill's requirement that each member demonstrate the same type and scope of injury. it would remove the courts as a last remaining van ewe to ensure gun manufacturers are

held libel for phi arms. my amendment can fix this problem at least with respect to gun owners bringing claims for detective design or manufacturing of a fire amplet this bill's rigorous requirements would prevent the lawsuits i mentioned and keep any future class actions brought by gun owners against manufacturers for defectively manufactured items from moving forward. the manufacturers in many cases were well aware of the defects for many years but it took a class action for them to finally do something about it. today you have the opportunity to choose to stand with sportsmen, with law-abiding citizens purchasing guns to protect their homes and families, and with law enforcement who are protecting our communities or you can stand with the gun manufacturers when they put out defective products that put responsible gun owners at rest -- risk. i strongly urge support for my amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . does the gentleman from texas

rise in opposition? mr. farenthold: i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farenthold: i make the same argument again and again. the purpose of this bill is to make sure the most injured are the most compensated and not result in a delusion of those by bringing in massive amounts of people not similarly injured. i disagree with the gentleman's argument that it isn't a similar injury if you're shot in the leg or you're shot in the arm by a defective gun. and why should guns be treated different than toasters? if your defective product injuries somebody you're responsible for it. but if it doesn't you shouldn't. i'd be happy to yield. mr. deutch: guns should be treated exactly the same way as toasters and i hope the gentleman will work with me to make sure that the consumer product safety commission will recall -- mr. farenthold: reclaiming my time. we're dealing with the tort system right now in class action.

be happy to have a conversation sometime in the future about consumer protection legislation. but at this point under the bill we are discussing, if you exempt guns, people injured by guns will actually -- truly injured by guns will actually receive less compensation because they will be exempted and the plaintiff's attorneys will be able to build a big class where even if you exhausted -- in the worst-case scenario you exhaust all the resources of the gun company and end up people getting a coupon for 20% off their next firearm as opposed to actual monetary damages with the plaintiff's attorney faking home millions. this bill makes sure that the most injured get the most money and the -- those not do not. the exception you want to put for whatever industry, the bill generally works for all industries. that's the way it was designed. and i yield back the remainder

of my time as i urge everyone to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. deutch: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-389. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-389 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 581, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chair. you know, my amendment would exempt suits arising out of the fair housing act or the equal

credit opportunity act. i offer my amendment today, mr. chairman, out of a real concern about the consequences the bill will have on social justice issues. one of these issues that's very access to the financial products for fearns. that's the reason i -- african-americans. that's the reason before i became a member of congress created a credit union in milwaukee, wisconsin. we're still seeing discrimination in housing and auto financing, insurance products in my home district of milwaukee. we -- this is not something, mr. chairman, that happened, you know, in the good old days. we've witnessed discrimination in mortgage loans as recently as 2012. as a member of the financial services committee, we have learned through about the cfpb's role in cracking down on

auto lenders who discriminates against minorities. so the same credit score, if your name is rodriguez or barack obama jones, suddenly your auto loan would be at a higher rate. class actions are an important tool to fight back. for example, in atkins vs. stanley, that's a class action suit that was filed against morgan stanley for practices through a mortgage lender that had a significant impact against an entire african-american community. detroit, michigan, from where our distinguished ranking member hails, the practices led to filling these communities with high-risk subprime loans, leading up to the 2008 housing crisis. i'd commend any of you to go to detroit and see the result of

that discrimination where entire communities have been eviscerated. actions helped uncover and fight back against auto finance lender practices that use these subjective criteria, whether your name was rodriguez or barack obama jones, to determine credit worthiness. this practice was found to have a disproportionate impact, charging these higher interest rates for minorities compared to white borrowers with the exact same credit ratings. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. does the gentleman from texas rise in opposition? mr. farenthold: i do. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: i once again make the same argument. once we take out one specific claim or the other, we do away with the benefits to that group that this bill confers. this bill is pro-consumer by making sure the most injured receive the most compensation and that you don't artificially build up a class and dilute the

award. it's the exact same argument i've made on almost all of the other previous amendments, and i urge my colleagues to oppose and yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized. ms. moore: well, you know, that argument is not a good argument because when you think of the example of -- just say morgan stanley, if there were someone who in detroit, michigan, if they lost their house through the subprime lending, that has as much impact on that person as the person next door who was underwater and couldn't sell their home, couldn't repair it because of the impact on their next door neighbor. so this notion that they have to be injured in exactly the same way really flies in the face of logic and, of course, flies in the face of justice.

and the gentleman has yielded back so i guess i should do the same. but i would ask members to adopt my amendment. it's common sense. it is just and there are so many cases against minorities, in particular, that would be adversely impacted through this legislation. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. moore: please, mr. chairman, i need a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-389. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-389 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 581, the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. chairman. my second amendment would exempt pay equity lawsuits arising from title 7 of the civil rights act or the equal pay act. today, the wage gap for women is a very real experience, not only for those women but for families in the united states work force. according to the national women's law center, the gender wage gap amounts to over $10,000 a year in median income, but this bill, h.r. 1927, takes away one of the only effective tools that wrim

in the workplace have to -- women in the workplace have to narrow the wage gap and that is through class action suits filed under title 7 of the civil rights act or the equal pay act. this bill would, to borrow judge poster's term, really drives a stake through the heart of the pay equity, equal pay act or the civil rights act. and this bill will make it harder to certify members of a class in pay equity cases because each detail relating to the type and scope of the damage is often unique to the woman who was injured. for example, a woman involved in a class could have a different type of job, different number of years working for a company, different wages, different enefits, and if the company is discriminating against all women across all job categories, they would not be certified as a class unless

they made exactly the same way, worked there exactly the same number of years which, mr. chairman, is ludicrous. this bill would also make it rder for women in pay equity cases because at the certification stage. women wouldn't have the information about each other to know whether or not they could be in the same class. with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. does the gentleman from texas rise in opposition? mr. farenthold: i do. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: thank you very much. again, we get back to the argument as you start to exempt certain groups or certain types of lawsuits it does -- it creates the same situation we have now that we're trying to fix in that class where those mostly injured get the ploast compensation and those only -- most compensation and those only marginally injured are compensated accordingly. i think part of what the other side has a little misunderstanding of the bill, i keep hearing the word exact.

it's not the exact same injury. the bill requires that class members share the same scope of injury, which is intended to prevent certification of grossly overbroad class action lawsuits that include members with wildly varying injury. the dictionary and ordinary meaning of scope is the range of a relevant subject. judges are certainly capable of determining relevant range of injuries that would make class members suitably typical of one another. i think this could happen in all cases, especially and actually probably more so in these equal pay-type cases as we look at the scope of the injury is being paid less. again, i think common sense is going to dictate as we've seen historically the vast majority of the times our federal court system get it right. there are a few notable exceptions but that's beyond the scope of this argument. so i would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, this

exception to a great piece of legislation that is designed to make our class action system fairer and make sure those the most injured are the most compensated and i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: i thank my colleague for that exhaustive explanation and definition of scope. but common sense just ain't common. and so we cannot rely on common sense. i just want to say that the courts are already requiring a plaintiff seeking class action certification to make substantial showings that they have in fact been injured. and that sort of argument that they have to have the same scope and we need to reserve the benefits for those at the top so women who are discriminated against in a firm, we're only concerned with those women who are going to lose the most money because

they didn't get a management position. we're not going to be concerned with the women who worked in the janitorial services and were discriminated against. you know, i think that this is -- there's a smoking gun here when you hear our opponents make these arguments and regularal us with definitions of scope -- regal us with definitions of scope. if it ain't broke don't fix it and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: i stand by the plain language in the statute and the intent is to help victims and make the class action system fairer, and exceptions will only weaken that. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair,

the noes have it. ms. moore: mr. chairman, i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 114-389. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in house report number offered by 389, ms. maxine waters of california. the chair: the gentlelady from california, miss maxine waters, and a member opposed will control five minutes. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 1927, the fairness in class action litigation act. my amendment would protect students, service members, and

veterans seeking monetary relief from fraudulent institutions of higher education by exempting them from the onerous requirements for class certification outlined in the bill. h.r. 1927 requires federal courts to certify a class only when all class members demonstrate they have suffered the same type and scope of injury. this additional requirement would be unduly burdensome to students, service members, and veterans who have been fraudulently misled by the for-profit college industry. for example, recently the department of education onducted a joint investigation with california attorney general that concluded that for-profit college misrepresented its job placement rates to prospective

and enrolled students. specifically, the investigation found that among other abuses a corinthian accounting program reported a job placement rate of 92% of its graduates in accounting related fields. but in reality only 12% of the graduates of this program had secured jobs in accounting. for a separate business associate program, corinthian reported a 95% job placement rate, but the department of education determined that in of the only 14% program's graduates had jobs in the relevant field. it is clear that with job placement rate errors of 80% and 81% respectively, students enrolled in both programs were intentionally and fraudulently misled by corinthian colleges.

yet, under h.r. 1927, these defrauded students arguably would not be able to form a class to seek relief because they have been injured by a mere 1% degree of difference, or because they were lied to about job placement rates in different careers. this is totally illogical and unfair and defeats the purpose of the class action. as the example demonstrates, particularly in the context of igher education, h.r. 1927 essentially makes class certifications impossible to achieve and thus impractical to pursue. the inability to bring forth class actions will effectively shield for-profit colleges from accountability and significantly reduce the access to our court system for deserving students and veterans. we only need to look further at

corinthian college to understand the harm that ensues when these schools are left unaccountable. for decades, corinthian colleges defrauded its students by inflating job placement rates, engaging in unfair marketing practices, and illegal debt collection tactics, and requiring students to take out private loans at high interest rates. and according to the california attorney general they likewise unlawfully used military seals in their advertising materials to lure an increasing number of our active service men and veterans -- sir vestmen and veterans. worse yet, by including bans on class actions as a prerequisite to enrollment, corinthian colleges protected themselves from liability while engaging in these awful predatory tactics. as a result of their decades of

predatory conduct, corinthian finally was forced to close its doors in april, 2015, leaving thousands of students with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. worthless degrees and no job opportunities to show for their time and hard work. hundreds of vet rans forfeited their g.i. benefits that were earned on the battlefield in service to our country. one veteran of the wars in iraq and afghanistan told politico that the months he spent studying auto mechanics at a corinthian school was wasted time because of the poor equipment and the training he received. in october, a federal judge ruled that corinthian college was operating a predatory lending scheme and ordered the school to pay back $531 million in damages to all students who

attended the network of colleges. before it closed its doors. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. waters: i would ask for support for my amendment. i'm sure that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle would not want to go down in history as preventing these kinds of acts from being dealt with. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas -- for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. farenthold: i seek to claim time in opposition to the am. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farenthold: thank you, madam chair. i oppose this amendment for the same reason that i have opposed almost every amendment so far. it exempts a certain class from the bill that is designed to help those that are most injured. first, the base bill only applies to classes seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss. insofar as education related cases do not seek money damage,

they are completely unaffected by the bill. and would be -- proceed just as they do today. if money damages are being sought, of course they should be subject to the procedures in this bill. the purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of evaluating like claims not to provide a means of artificially inflating the size of the class to exort a larger settlement. the other side is continually saying that these groups or classes must be exactly the same. the languages is of the same scope. the bill is designed to keep from grossly inflating the size of a class. the students of the college that you are recommending all were in the same class and would appear to be similarly injured by the -- i can't predict what a court would do. i believe that under this bill even without your amendment they would continue to be certified as a class because the scope of their injuries would be the same.

it's not designed to make it exact. it's the same scope. that's where we are trying to go. claims seeking monetary relief need to be grouped in classes where the most injured receive the most compensation. but it doesn't have to be the exact same injury. so i don't see any need for this amendment. i think it unfairly would actually hurt those folks from the college because they would not be subject to the protections of this bill in that an attorney couldn't inflate the class to include folks let's say from other colleges that didn't have as much damage. you can think of a wide variety of hypotheticals there, but the idea behind this bill, regardless of the class, is, if you're the most injured, you should be the most compensated. where re's a lot of area the judges can determine what

the scope of those injuries are. i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the amendment is not agreed to. ms. waters: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8, pripted in house report 114-389. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in house report number

114-389. offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 581, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, madam chair. thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of my amendment which would remove the scope of injury, the scope and economic loss language from the bill. think of yourself as driving own a two-lane road doing 55 miles an hour. it's nighttime. or it could be daytime. but suddenly you lose control of your car because of your ignition switch cutting off the car. and you lose control of your power steering and your brakes. and there's a -- an 18 wheeler

coming at you and you have no time to react. there is a crash. and you as the driver are killed in the unfortunate accident. let's assume that that has happened in numerous other cases. perhaps the injuries were not as bad as a death, perhaps someone just suffered a closed head injury, a concussion, or perhaps a broken arm in the accident. well, let's assume that both of those cars were made by the same manufacturer, the same ignition switch, a defect in hat ignition switch caused the crash, and now there's a number of claimants wanting to get together and file a class action lawsuit because they know that one of those consumers going up against that

large company that has an army of lawyers, all of whom come to court against a single aintiff to defeat the claim, these briefcase toting, loafer wearing siling stocking lawyers getting paid $900 an hour, they come to court, they have helped the corporation hide the existence of the defect for many years so there have been so many accidents that have occurred. and singular plaintiffs aggregating their claims coming together against that corporation have a better shot at winning the case than just a single plaintiff going against an army of corporate lawyers. so what this legislation does is changes the rules, tilts the scales in favor of the company by making the plaintiffs prove

that they suffered the same type and scope of the injury as the named class representative. that's despite there being one common question of law and fact that permeates all of the cases. why shouldn't they be allowed to bring that case together? his amendment would remove the scope and economic loss language of the bill so that it would not impede the ability of claimants to bring a class action lawsuit against the corporate wrongdoer. i would ask my colleagues to support my amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. farenthold: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the clerk: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes.

mr. farenthold: thank you, madam chair. this guts the bill, the bill requires that class action the same scope of injury. which sin tended to prevent the certification of grossly overbroad class action lawsuits that include members with wildly varying injuries. the dictionary and ordinary meaning of scope is the range of a relevant subject. judges are certainly capable of determining the relevant range of industries that would make class members suitably typical of one another. the base bill uses the word scope to make clear that all class members do not need to suffer the same type of injury to the exact same extent. but they still must demonstrate they suffered the same range of injuries as determined by the court. this amendment also strikes the term economic loss from the bill. the base bill defines the scope of class actions covered by the bill as those involving claims for monetary relief for

personal injury or economic loss. economic loss is defined by black's law dictionary as, a monetary loss such as lost wages or lost profits in a products liability suit, the economic loss includes the cost of repair or replacement of defective property. as well as commercial loss for the property's inadequate value and consequential loss of profits or use. these sorts of claims should also be covered under the bill because their claims for monetary relief. those with significantly greater claims for such relief should have their own day in court and the chance to obtain the most compensation for their economic loss. i'm urging my colleagues to reject this gutting amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: that's exactly what i want to do is gut this legislation because it guts the ability of asbestos victims to

press class actions against the wrongdoing koch brothers and other companies that manufacture that product. and i want it to be known that there are veterans organizations that oppose this legislation. the air force sergeants association. air force women's association. amvets. association of united states navy. commissioned officers association of the u.s. public health service. fleet reserve association. the jewish war veterans of the u.s.a. the marine corps reserve association. the military officers association of america. the military order of the purple heart. the national association of uniformed services. the national defense council. the national enlist red serve association. the retired enlisted association. -- united states

states coast guard, excuse me, guard chief petty officers association the united states army warrant association the vietnam veterans association and on and on. i don't know who those veteran organizations that my friend named actually do, i don't know who they are, they certainly have names that appear to misrepresent whether or not they are in favor of the rights of service men and women but these organizations that i just named are. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: i urge my colleagues to oppose this tpwhism gentleman on the other side of the aisle, mr. johnson, of course, indicated that it is his intent to gut the bill here.

we need to defeat this amendment and of course mr. johnson is free to vote against the bill though i believe that would be a mistake. i urge my colleagues not only to oppose this amendment but support the underlying bill when we get to it. and yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. johnson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 1, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 114-389. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9

printed in house report 114-389, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 581, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, an a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chair. i think most of all that we've had a vigorous discussion on behalf of the american people. i hope they are listening. i hope my colleagues are listening. because as i listen to the debate myself i heard a continuing theme, let's bash the plaintiffs and those seeking justice and make sure we make our friends who want to eliminate costs, eliminate the road to justice, provide them with an opportunity to reconfigure the road that has the lady justice balanced scales s a symbol of this system.

i heard my colleagues -- my colleague from texas mitigating circumstance good friend, talk about cost and making sure the individuals in a class are spread out so they are limited in the ability to press their case. i got the answer. and again i say that a one-way street to justice is unacceptable. and there are too many people who tied that i cannot stand on the floor and deny those who are sick and ailing, those who have thalidomide, where babies were born disconfigured because women took medicine that had not been test thsmed ejackson lee amendment would provide a balanced approach to the bill's disclosure requirement by applying transparency rules in the bill equally to the defendants. specifically it will require that an asbestos defendant seeking information from the trust about a plaintiff to make available to the plaintiff and

trust information about the median settlement amount for claims settled or paid within five years the date or request for the state in which the plaintiff's actions were filed. the american bar associations understands my point and frankly in their comments, they made the following statement that i think is important. we oppose legislation such as h.r. 1927 because it would unnecessarily circumvent the rules enabling us, making it more difficult for large numbers of injured parties to seek redress in court. again a one-way street. and can place added burdens on the already overburdened court system. the a.b.a. relates how this bill is a poor bill. i ask unanimous consent to put this into the record. but again, my friends, this speaks to the idea that we're not focusing on the plaintiff. so the injured party is at a

disadvantage. let me say to my colleagues, this bill is unnecessary. because in a class action, you do not get the same amount of money. it just allows you to put together your resources to press forward your case. so if you are a poor farmer or if you're a poor waitress or someone driving a 1989 car and you're hit in a circumstance or you're in a circumstance that puts you in a category where that car even as old as it is has some defect, and you have no ability to press your case, you have the ability to press your case along with others. i am outraged to think we would deny that. so my amendment says to the defendant, you need to put forward all the information that you're demanding of those individuals who are singularly unable to provide the kind of legal representation that they need. if transparency was the true goal of the bill then why

doesn't the bill require settling defendants to reveal information important to public safety? the asbestos health crisis is the result of a massive corporate coverup. trust information is already public. so let's make it a two-way street. ,et me also add into the record far from being even handed this bill allowed defendants and only defendants an end-around state requirements. the bill would tip the scales of justice in favor of defendants. let me say i ask my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. farenthold: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. fanchte hold: thank you, madam chair. one of the issues the fact act addresses is state court litigants' inability to obtain information from bankruptcy asbestos trusts.

the fact act eliminate this is problem by requiring minimal discussions from -- minimal disclosures from asbestos trusts and adecisional information at the cost of the requesting party, doesn't put a burden on the trust. the amendment not only removes the minimal disclosure requirements but would replace additionalties closure requirement on parties who request information from the asbestos trust. over the course of four separate hear the issue highlighted was the lack of disclosure by the asbestos bankruptcy trust, not private party litigants. there's been no record of litigants having difficulties obtaining information necessary to sue the businesses. in fact, the evidence is to the contrary. look at a plaintiff's attorney who specializes in asbestos website and you'll see how they tout their access to information necessary to sue the companies. it is the parties other than the plaintiff, including other

asbestos bankruptcy trusts, who have difficulty obtaining information from the asbestos bankruptcy trust system which has created an environment conducive to fraud and take money out of those trusts that is needed for future victims this efact act levels the playing field so all parties have access to the same information. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. the gentlewoman from texas has one minute remaining. ms. jackson lee: well, i vigorously disagree with my good friend from texas because it is very clear the bill would tip the scales of justice in favor ofs a best tess defendants by giving defendants access to information about victims' settlements while allowing the defendants to continue hiding information about their settlements. my amendment asks for the defendants to give the same information and no matter how

much my good friend tries to redirect and suggest that this bill does not do that, it does. might i also suggest that the other side offered the suggestion that there were groups leek save our veterans, cost of freedom veterans resource representing the veterans community. i take issue with that representation and ask unanimous consent to put into the record a whole list that has been recounted by my colleague, mr. johnson from the -- the chair: the gentlewoman's request is covered by jeb leave. ms. jackson lee: veterans groups are saying they're against the bill. they're for the little guy. that's why they go to the battlefield and fight. i'm standing here for the little gi. my -- little guy. my amendment says let the big provide the same individual and the little guy shouldn't have to pay. i reserve my time.

the chair: the gentlewoman's time has ex-peered. ms. jackson lee: i ask that my amendment be supported. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: with all due respect to the gentlewoman from houston who is my friend, the fact act does not require that the settlement amount be disclosed. what it does require is the minimal amount of information to , that we believe is necessary to help prevent fraud. that's name and claimant, the -- and the basis of exposure and the nature of the claim. it specifically protects all sorts of private information, in addition to the protections already built into the bankruptcy clause. i guess the veterans groups are divided on that. ms. jackson lee listed out a group, and we've entered into the record a group of veterans groups and other groups that support it. of most interest to the gentlelady from texas should be veterans coalitions of

organizations which represents more than 600,000 texas veterans, supports this because they know that our young service men and women who have not yet manifested, that were exposed to asbestos and have not manifested the symptoms of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, need to have these in place because they can't sue the federal government other sovereign immunity. this protects veterans and makes sure there's money for future claimants. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. jackson lee: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed.

the committee will rise informally to receive a message.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order this echair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a president from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president to deliver the house a communication in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 114-389. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10, printed in house report number 114-389, offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 581, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i thank you, madam

chairman. madam chair, my amendment would address the bill's serious violation of the privacy of asbestos victims. instead of requiring asbestos trusts to disclose detailed personal information about asbestos victims as the bill would do, my amendment would require aggregate reporting of the demands received and payments made by those trusts. this would ensure transparency of the trusts without jeopardizing the privacy of the victims. let's remember why these asbestos trusts are established in the first place. corporations that knowing produced this toxic substance that killed or serious injured unsuspecting american consumers and workers, have since been held accountable for their practices through litigation. asbestos companies had the option of establishing a trust to satisfy the obligations to their victims while shielding themselves from future claims when they meerge from bankruptcy. as if contracting a painful and life threatening disease like lung cancer or mesothelioma

from exposure to asbestos is not bad enough, this bill would further victimize claimants by putting their personal information on the internet. available to anyone who may seek to take advantage of them. the bill would require each asbestos trust to list the payment demands it has received, the amendments demanded, as well as the names and exposure histories of each claimant, along with the basis for any payment from the trust of such claimant. this information would be posted on the public docket of the court that established the trust. a docket that is easily accessible on the internet through paying a nominal fee. now, it is true that the records require that the reports required under this bill would not include any, quote, confidential medical record, unquote, a term that is undefined. or a clinton administrationant's full social security number. with just the information that the bill requires to be provided, one can still enter a tremendous amount of sensitive health information about a vick tifment releasing such information is an invitation to

scam artists, to identity thieves, as well as to data brokers that may use the information collected to deny employment or credit or insurance to the victims. to prevent this totally unnecessary and wrong invasion of privacy, my amendment would say, ok, we'll release aggregate data from the trust sufficient to ensure transparency and to combat the imagined fraud claimed by supporters of the bill, but we won't expose the personal information of as basses to victims and make them vulnerable to further victimization. rather than standing with the corporation supporting this legislation, which spend decades poisoning americans with asbestos, i urge my colleagues to stand with susan vento, a fierce opponent of this bill and video of our former colleague, bruce vento, who lost his life due to asbestos exposure. stand with the many organizations opposing this bill that do not wish to see asbestos personal information compromised. stand with the victims who suffered enough.

if you believe there's fraud, fine. the amendment would say present the aggregate information which would prevent or reveal the fraud. don't further victimize the victims by putting their personal information on the internet so that they can be further victimized. their privacy and reality they can be victimized by scam artists or employers or others. i urge adoption of the nadler amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. farenthold: i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman from new york's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farenthold: thank you, madam chair. the fact act requires increased transparency to combat fraud committed against the asbestos trust. this amendment strikes the requirement that the asbestos trust publish the very data that would be necessary to detect the fraud between the trusses and state court tort proceedings. in its place, the amendment calls for quarterly reports under the bill to publish only

aggregate lists of demands received and aggregate lists of payments made by the trust. simple aggregation of information is not enough to allow defendants and state court parties and sister asbestos trusts to make meaningful inquiry into whether or not they are being defrauded. the amendment also removes the requirement that the asbestos trust respond to information requests from parties subject to aasbestos related suits and opposes such requests on the inquiring parties. the cost shifting element of this provision is significant. in fact, a g.a.o. report found that one asbestos trust had to pay over $1 million to respond to a discovery request. rather than have asbestos trust money used to comply with discovery requests, they should be preserved for the payment to the victims of asbestos related illnesses. this amendment not only guts the transparency requirements and elements of the bill, it also removes meaningful cost

saving measures. and in fact, the bill is carefully crafted to protect folks' privacy. here's what happens. the legislation ensures that claimants' confidential medical records and full social security numbers will not be made public. they also trust reports are subject to the bankruptcy codes' existing privacy protections. section 107 of the code, for example, allows courts to protect any information that would present an undue risk of identity theft or injure a claimant if disclosed. rule 9037 of the federal rules of bankruptcy procedure, privacy protections for filing made with the court would also apply to these public reports. the rule would allow the courts to require redactions of personal and private information. finally, rule 9037 will allow the courts to limit or prohibit electronic access to the trust's reports. courts throughout the country already use these rules to protect the personal information of individuals who

file claim during asbestos bankruptcies. for example, the court in overseeing a bankruptcy redacted trust claim's information introduced into the hearing record ladainian tomlinsonner released to the public. other courts required anyone reviewing bankruptcy claims to agree to strict protective ordnances. witnesses of the house judiciary committee on the fact act have explained that the bill does not threaten asbestos victims privacy and the claimants routinely disclose more information than the trust would be required to report in the course of tort litigation and bankruptcy proceedings. for these and other reasons, i urge my colleagues to oppose the nadler amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. and the gentleman from new york has two minutes remaining. mr. nadler: thank you. madam chairman, we should realize that the bankruptcy code cited by the distinguished

gentleman from texas are permissive not manned torery. bankruptcy code section 1307-c for example permits but does not require the bankruptcy court to issue an order printing the disclosure of certain information pertaining to an individual's for cause if the court finds disclosure of such information would create undue risk of identity theft or other unlawful injury to the individual or individual's property. in other words, the victim here who has been victimized by the people who use -- produce the asbestos would now have to go into court and require -- request the protective order. the burden would be on the victim. why are we putting the burden on the victim instead of on the tort feezer? the bill would do that. bankruptcy codes 107 so-called privacy protection is not automatic. as a result, the asbestos victim would have to retain counsel and go to court to prove cause to obtain relief. again, you are shifting the burden further to the victim

ieser. e tort f if the court finds or if a trust believes it is being defrauded, it can request the court to get this information. it can ask for discoverry. yes, discovery's expensive. you want to shift the expense to the vick tifment -- victim. highly unfair. this bill shifts tremendous burden to the victim and if he doesn't pick up that burden and go in for protective orders, puts personal information that can be used to further victimize him opened to anyone who wants to get on the internet. my amendment would say, no. to publish aggregate data to help prevent fraud. i'm not sure there is much fraud, but publish aggregate data to help prevent fraud. if you have a reason then you can go and ask the court for more instead of the other way around. the question is, should be or en be on the tort feeser

not. i side with the victim. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. has two minutes remaining. mr. farenthold: i think we are going down a rabbit trail. i agree with mr. nadler, this bill is defined to protect -- designed to protect victims. it's not intended to increase the burdens or costs on the victim. it does require the trusts to publish the name and the basis of the claim of folks who claim trust so that they are not double dipped and pay more than one claim for the same person. that's what we are trying to do here. as we start to get into the additional information, that's further down the road. that's not part of the disclosure requirements of the fact act. but once the litigation proceeds and we have determined that somebody has filed a claim and they are in another court, the information -- further information requested would normally be part of that

proceedings and would fall under the bankruptcy code rules. the disclosures of the fact act requirements from the asbestos trust are very limited. name and the nature of the claim, and where they were exposed. that's less information than you have to release when you file any sort of tort case in a state court. and it's basically what we consider tonight bare minimum in order to allow defendants to sniff out the possibility of double dipping and fraudulent claims. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the amendment is not agreed -- have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york -- mr. nadler: i request the yeas

and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 114-389, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number one by mr. cohen oftown tfpblet amendment number three by mr. conyers of michigan. amendment number 4 by mr. deutch of florida. amendment number 35 by ms. moore of wisconsin. amendment number 6 by ms. moore of wisconsin. amendment number 7 by ms. waters of california. amendment number 8 by mr. johnson of georgia. amendment number 9 by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number 10 by mr. nadler of new york. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment number one

printed in house report 114-389, by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 114-389, offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be don't you counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 158. the nays are 211. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-239 by the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-239 -- 114-389 offered by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 163. the nays are 221. he amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-389 by the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-389 offered by mr. deutch of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 163. the nays are 232. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-389 by the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-389 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 172, the nays are 229. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-389 by the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-389, offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 177, the nays are 224. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7, printed in house report 114-389 by the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7

printed in house report 114-389, offered by ms. maxine waters of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 177, the nays are 223. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number printed in house report 114-389 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, on which further

proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 114-389, offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. 4 any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 177. the nays are 223. with one voting present.

the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in house report 114-389 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 114-389, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair:en of this vote, the yeas are 174, the nays are 228. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in house report 114-389 by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, on which further proceedings were post-pobed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 114-389, offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 222. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule the committee rises. the chair: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1927 and pursuant to house resolution 581 reports the back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee had under consideration h.r. 1927 and

pursuant to house resolution 581 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the yirse have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend title 28, united states code, to improve fairness in class action litigation. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the

gentlewoman opposed to the bill? the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: ms. mccollum of minnesota moves to recommit the bill to the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report the bill back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of section 3 of the bill, add the following. c, protecting the privacy of children injured by asbestos in a school. paragraph 8 of section 524-g of title 11 of the united states code has added by subsection a shall not apply with respect to a claimant whose claim is filed by or on behalf of an individual exposed to asbestos as a child in a school environment. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill. it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final

passage, as amended. mr. speaker, asbestos is a known carcinogen. asbestos weeks havoc on the health and -- reeks havoc on the health and livelihood, killing approximately 10,000 americans each year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. members will please remove their conversations from the house floor. he house will be in order. ms. mccollum: this can cause lung cancer and mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer that an estimated 3,000 americans are diagnosed with each year. detected, mesothelioma oma

victims may only survive eight months to 14 months. this was true for my predecessor, the late congressman bruce vento. bruce proudly served minnesota's fourth district for more than 20 years in this house and many of you served with him in this chamber. bruce died from mesothelioma in 2000 only months, only months after he was diagnosed. i lost a friend and a mentor. his family lost a husband, a father, a son and a brother. since then i have worked with mesothelioma patients and their families to fight this awful disease and to hold those responsible for asbestos exposure accountable. and i can tell you this legislation does not support the victims of asbestos. the asbestos trust would be forced, forced to release the private information of patients and their families on a public website. listing a patient's name, their address, health and financial information and the last four digits of their social security number exposes these patients to identity theft.

h.r. 1927 would also delay any compensation victims could eceive with new cumbersome and unniss procedural hurdles, meaning -- unnecessary procedural hurdles, mean victims will not get the justice they deserve to know their families will not be burdened with medical costs. this legislation is unacceptable for those seeking justice from asbestos exposure. and it is especially outrageous when we know this legislation does not provide basic protection for children. this amendment would protect children. this amendment will ensure that children exposed to asbestos will not have their personal information disclosed. children exposed to asbestos from the walls, the ceilings and the floors of their classrooms or even the possible exposure from crayons that they used that were manufactured in china. our children deserve

protection. their parents should have the piece -- peace of mind to know their children's security is secured. i should not worry about my child's health as they suffer from asbestos exposure and then add the purred of worrying that my child's private information was exposed on a website. without this amendment, the current bill you will be voting to deliver sensitive information about children to criminals who could exploit them. and let me be clear. this information will be available to identity thieves and to sexual predators. congressman vento was a dedicated public servant and an asbestos victim. and i know bruce would be horrified that this house would allow a child's personal information to be exposed in this incredibly irresponsible manner, and we should stop it from happening.

we should stop it from happening. congress has the responsibility to find real solutions to help and support victims, especially children of asbestos exposure and their families, and this bill falls far short of it. the least we can do here today is to protect the privacy of innocent children who have already suffered enough. so i urge my colleagues to pass this amendment and to protect the privacy of vulnerable children. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. farenthold: i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farenthold: thank you very much. i am stunned by how many people apparently have not read this three-page bill. nowhere in the bill does it say we're going to release addresses. no where does it say we're going to release medical records. it's simply the name, the basis of the claim and exposure. ms. mccollum: fleeled?

-- will the gentleman yield? mr. farenthold: no. this is designed to protect people, especially children. there needs to be money in this trust for future claims. we want to help the children, not the plaintiffs' attorneys. d this amendment is -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: this amendment is wholly unnecessary. if you look at rule 9037 of the bankruptcy code by default, unless the court orders otherwise, information about a minor is restricted to only releasing in any case the last four digits of the social security number, the year of the individual's birth, the minor's initials, not the minor's name, and the last four digits of financial account number. this motion to recommit is a waste of time, it's unnecessary. already covered by the

bankruptcy code. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not adopted. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i request, mr. speaker, a recorded vote on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a recorded vote is ordered. the chair will reduce to five for electronic votes on the question of passage. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 173rk the nays are 227. the motion is not adopted. the house will be in order. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. without objection the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today with my colleagues from arizona and around the country to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the shooting that took place on january 8, 2011, in tucson, arizona. on that sunny, chilly saturday

morning, six people were killed and 13 wounded at a congress on your corner event hosted by congresswoman gabrielle ghimpleds congresswoman was among the injured along with a member of her staff who would succeed her, congressman ron barber. ms. mcsally: but tucson has not languished in grief. as we remember the victims, we also remember how our community rose up with courage and dignity to support those injured and their loved ones. the january 8 memorial foundation is working to build a permanent memorial to the victims. just feet below is in this building is the gabe zimmerman meeting room, a lasting tribute to the staffer who died in southern arizona. today and this weekend people in southern arizona are coming together to celebrate the lives of our friends and loved ones

taken too soon and the difference they made and continue to make. there are hikes, bike rides, discussions, story telling and much more. while we know some wounds may never fully heal, by carrying on the legacy of those who died, we ensure their memories are never forgotten. christina taye boar green. dorothy morris. judge john rolle. phyllis schneck. dorwin stoddard, and gabe zimmerman. i ask the house to join in a moment of silence in remembrance of those lost. the speaker pro tempore: the house will rise and observe a moment of silence. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yes have it. does the gentleman from texas -- the gentleman from texas requests a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this

vote the yeas are 211 the nays are 188, with one answering present. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the house of representatives, i am returning here with my -- without my approval h.r. 3762 which provides for reconciliation pursuant to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016. herein referred to as the reconciliation act this legislation is not only repeal parts of the affordable care act but would reverse the significant progress we have made in improving health care in america. the affordable care act includes a set of fair rules and stronger consume brother texts that have

made health care coverage more affordable, more attainable, and more patient centered and it is working. about 17.6 million americans have gained health care coverage at the -- as the law's coverage provisions have taken effect. the nation's uninsured rate now stands at its lowest level ever and demand for marketplace coverage during december, 2015, was at an all-time high. health care costs are lower than expected when the law was passed and health care equality is higher with improvements in patient safety, saving an 7,000 lives. this has changed the country for the better, setting it on a stronger course. the congressional budget office estimates that the legislation would increase the must remember of uninsured americans by 22 million after 2017. the council on economic advisors siment -- estimates that this exemption in health care coverage could mean more than

900,000 fewer people getting care, people having trouble paying other bills due to higher health care costs and potentially $2,000 in more additional debt. this would cost millions of hardworking middle class families the affordable health coverage they deserve. reliable health care coverage would no longer be for everyone. it would return to being a privilege for a few. the legislation's implications extend far beyond those who would become uninsured. for example, about 150 million americans with employer-based insurance would be at risk of higher premiums and lower wages and it would cause the cost of health coverage for people buying it on their own to skyrocket. the reconciliation act would also effectively defund planned parenthood. planned parenthood uses both federal and nonfederal funds to provide a range of important preventive care and services, including health screenings,

vaccinations and checkups to millions of men and women who visit their health centers annually. long-standing federal policy already prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion, except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of a woman would be in danger. by eliminating federal medicaid funding for a major provider of health care, h.r. 3762 would limit access to health care for men, women, and families across the nation and would disproportionately impact low income individuals. republicans and the congress republicans have tried to undermine the affordable care act by voting to repeal basic protections that provide security for the middle class. members of congress should be working together to grow the economy, strengthen middle-class families and create new jobs because the harm this bill would cause to the health and financial security of millions of americans, it has earned my veto.

signed barack obama, the white 2016. january 7, the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? . >> i move to postponeconsideration of the veto message to january 26, 2016. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one hour. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a simple motion which will postponefurther consideration of the bill gutting obamacare and defunding planned parenthood. this delay will ensure the members of the house and the american people will have time to fully consider the veto and its implications, with that, i yield back and move the previous question on the motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to postpone. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the motion is

adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland wish to be recognized. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring the schedule for the week to come. without objection. mr. hoyer: i yield to mr. scalise for the purpose of giving us the schedule for the week to come. i yield to my friend. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. members are advised that first votes of the week are expected

at 6:30 p.m. on monday. mr. speaker, on tuesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on wednesday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. no votes are expected in the house on thursday and friday. the house will consider a number of suspensions next week. a complete list which will be announced at the close of business today. i want to take a moment to highlight one of those bills. the north korea sanctions enforcement act is a critical bill given current events which would prohibit north korea's access to the hard currency and other goods that allow this regime to continue its destabilizing behavior. additionally, the house will consider a bill h.r. 3662, iran terror finance transparency act sponsored by representative steve russell. this bill would block the president from offering

sanctions relief to an individual or bank until certifying that the entity has not conducted any transactions with a terrorist organization. lastly, mr. speaker, the house will consider two bills that end burdensome rules and regulations by this administration. the first of those, mr. speaker is a bill by representative mooney, h.r. 1644, the stream act, which is a critical piece of legislation to address the administration's extreme protection rule. this is a rule which is designed to shut down surface mining and significant portion of underground mining particularly in the ap lashian region. it would save taxpayer dollars and protect american jobs. second is a joint resolution calling for the disapproval of the obama administrations overreach on the waters of the united states. this resolution would express congressional disapproval of unprecedented power grab that

harms the federal-state partnership in implementing the clean water act and would expand the scope of the e.p.a. to puddles in the back yards of millions of americans. those are the bills that we wanted to highlight and feature. i thank the gentleman, and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for the information. i know the majority leader is not here, but i observed with some irony at how much argument for legislation was included in the scheduling announcement. i think that's not necessarily inappropriate. i will make that point, but i'm sure the majority leader will remember that in the future. i thank the gentleman for the information. i want to say to him at the outset, note and we took an action on his motion to which we neither asked for a vote nor objected, but that we have delayed the consideration of the veto of the president of the

united states assuring that the 22 million people that would be removed from health insurance if the president had not vetoed that bill, will not go into effect. and i want to ensure the majority whip that as the minority whip that bill will not go into effect either today or the 25th. there are more than sufficient votes on this side of the aisle to support and confirm the president's veto and to assure that those 22 million people as well as those who are benefiting from other portions of the bill, will continue to do so. so i thank the gentleman for that information. regret that we have delayed that vote, but absolutely assure that the 25th or 26th, that that

veto will be sustained by this house. of course it will initiate in this house. i also want to say to the gentleman, the speaker has pointed out that this year he wants to see real substance considered during the debate on the bill that i just discussed, the affordable care act. there was some discussion by mr. upton there was an alternative that the republican side had. we never considered, notwithstanding the 62 votes to repeal, an alternative. i would ask the gentleman if he believes that there will be during the coming weeks or months an alternative to the affordable care act considered on this floor, and i yield to my friend. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding and speaker ryan has laid out a vision that we want to have a bold agenda that we are going to bring forward in 2016.

and one of the things the speaker laid out is not an agenda that is going to be driven from the top down or by leadership but be driven by the members. and both the house republican and house democrat conferences do is have member retreats and our members can come together and discuss those items and that's what we are going to be doing next week as our members will be coming together and we want to build a consensus, not from the top down, but one that includes the interests of the members of our conference to fix the problems that have been created by the president's health care law and bring forward a patient-centered approach. with that, i yield back. mr. hoyer: i understand that and i appreciate the gentleman's observations, but i'm wondering whether or not our members would expect at some time in the future to have such a bill presented for a vote on the floor so that the american people could see as i understand

the speaker's premise being that he wants to lay out an agenda so in this presidential election there will be alternatives. my question to the whip is, will this house be expecting to vote on an alternative to consider an alternative with amendments perhaps made in order as well? i yield to my friend. mr. scalise: again, speaker ryan's commitment is we are going to restore regular order in the house. and what regular order means there isn't going to be an outcome by leadership to determine what is going to happen or when it is going to happen regardless of what the committee process produces. what's exciting to our membership this year is that the members will be able to participate in that process and the committees will be involved. i can't tell you what the committees will do or produce. this is going to be a process that is going to be open and

transparent and people can watch on c-span as hearings are held and not going to be a predisposed outcome but will be membership driven using regular order of the house. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i appreciate the gentleman's presentation. of course presumably if it is transparent, if it is open, then presumably the democratic members of the committee of jurisdiction on whatever issue there may be, we think we can work together with you on supporting job creation, reaching long-term fiscal agreement on permanently replacing the sequester, which your chairman believes is not a reasonable alternative and reach agreement on comprehensive tax reform, although my personal opinion that the passage of the tax bill a few weeks ago which i voted against, undermines that possibility. we believe we can work together

with you which this week has been made dramatically very clear and that is comprehensive immigration reform. as i said on ex-im bank i thought there was a majority of votes on the ex-im bank. it took a discharge petition to get to the floor, but when it got to the floor, i was correct. majority of republicans and all but one democrat for it. i think comprehensive immigration reform would pass. in a system that is transparent and open to the american people, what one would do is have a vote on this floor so the american people can see where each member is on that issue. we believe we can work with you, mr. whip, and the majority leader and the speaker, and your members on restoring voting rights. mr. cantor, when he was here, and mr. mccarthy, majority leader, he and i co-chaired,

honorary co-chairs, john lewis is the chair, when we went to the edmund pettus bridge which led to the adoption of the voting rights act. we can work with you on that. we also think -- i know there are strong feelings on the efforts the president has taken to make sure those who purchase guns in america are not dangerous to their neighbors or to others. we think we can work together with you on that. does the gentleman expect a vote on that issue on this floor in the near future? and i yield to my friend. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. many of these issues that he discussed are at various stages of the legislative process. some are in current hearings in committees, some legislation is being developed or being voted on, some of those issues that were discussed by the gentleman have already come to the house

floor and passed. many of the bills to get the economy back on track passed the senate that had been stuck in the senate. i encourage the minority whip to work with us and the majority to get our colleagues in the senate to move forward on some of that important legislation we have passed out of the house on a bipartisan fashion. i know the gentleman from maryland was with at the same ceremony i was where the navy did a very important significant action in naming a class of naval vessels after our colleague and civil rights hero john lewis and it was an honor to participate in that ceremony as i know you were there as well and you saw house members come together to pay tribute to john lewis and you saw the navy making a significant step saying they are going to build a class of naval ships that honor civil rights legends and naming the entire class of ships after john

lewis. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. we are all privileged and honor to serve in this house with john lewis. probably no member of this house who has been recognized for greater contributions to what america stands for than our colleague, john lewis. and it was so appropriate for the secretary of the navy, from mississippi, former governor of mississippi, to not only name this ship as the gentleman observed, but because it's the first ship -- and this ship is all about serving others, about supplying others that which they need. not only fuel, but also food and supplies. and so appropriate that john lewis, who lived his life serving others, this is not a war shipper say, but it is a naval ship that is going to be

critical important. and honoring john lewis was an appropriate act to take and i think he and i both extend our thanks to the navy secretary for taking this action. lastly, lastly, if i could, or i will, i have long -- had a long association with puerto rico. puerto rico of course is an integral part of the united states of america. its citizens are citizens of the united states of america. like other jurisdictions who have from time to time, whether they be in california or new york or in the midwest or the south or the north, have found themselves in deep fiscal trouble. puerto rico now finds itself in that position. i had the opportunity to talk a little earlier today with

chairman bishop about the hearings that are going on in the natural resources committee this month with reference to puerto rico. can the gentleman give me -- excuse me. i know that speaker ryan has indicated that we need to address this issue in an effective way, by march 31. which i very much appreciated his setting a goal on a time frame for that. can the gentleman give me any additional information as to the status of consideration of puerto rico, and extending it bankruptcy authority so that it might restructure its debt, so that it doesn't undermine its school system, its public safety, its transportation transportation, other needs of its people? and yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. of course, as the gentleman from maryland knows, puerto rico is facing a serious debt risis.

mr. scalise: that's why our committee is starting the process of examining solutions. as the gentleman mentioned, next week, on january 12, at 10:00 a.m., the committee of primary jurisdiction, the house committee on natural resources, led by chairman bishop, as the gentleman mentioned, has the first hearing scheduled on this manner -- matter. keeping with speaker ryan's commitment to regular order, it's important that we allow the committees of jurisdiction to work through these issues, to put forward the best solutions to a bad situation. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. and i would reiterate to my friend, we really do look forward to working with your side of the aisle on addressing some of the critical problems that i mentioned, that you've mentioned, that speaker ryan has mentioned. we hope that those will be open, transparent and inclusive, so that all views can be heard and ultimately we hope that things, proposals, policies, do come to this floor for a vote. it's my understanding that the speaker also wants to do the 12

appropriation bills, do them discretely. that is one at a time. and bring them to this floor. we look forward to that process occurring as well. and unless the gentleman wants to make some additional remarks, i'll yield back. i yield to my friend. mr. scalise: appreciate the gentleman yielding. i would say, in the spirit of bipartisanship, at some point i'd like to bring up some great blue crabs from the gulf of mexico and the gentleman can bring up some of those great maryland blue crabs and we can do a good taste test and enjoy some of our great cuisines and some good company. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that offer. i hope his feelings are not hurt when his crabs are left on the table. i will yield back the balance f my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. speaker, i ask

that -- unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourns to meet on monday, january 11, 2016, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative bills. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the girls varsity volleyball team at cherry key trail high school in aurora, colorado, for winning the 2015 colorado 5-a state championship game on november 14, 2015. mr. coffman: the students and staff who were part of the title winning cougar team deserve to be recognized for winning in what has been a season full of challenges.

following the tragic death of one of their players, celeste to , and a serious voor another, the cougars showed courage in the face of twoed a -- true adversity, to complete their title-winning season, which honored their teammates. in their dominant performances at the state championship, the girls of cherokee trail high school's volleyball team proved that hardwork, dedication and perseverance is the perfect recipe for champions. these volleyball players were led to the championship title through the tireless leadership of their head coach, terry miller, and his outstanding staff. it is with great pride that i join all of the residents of aurora, colorado, in congratulating the cherokee trail cougars for their state championship. mr. speaker, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i'd like to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognizes -- is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate brigadier general diana holland for becoming the first female commandant at west point academy. ms. sanchez: i believe brigadier general holland's appointment comes at a very pivotal time in u.s. history. when the military pursues to fully integrate women into the military. last month, secretary of defense ash carter announced his and the service's decision to open all units to women. this decision would not only open 220,000 jobs for women that were previously closed to

them, but it would also open the doors for more women to rise in the chain of command. and i believe that we need that to happen in our military. service women have bravely served our country in and out of combat. and finally, we will be giving them the recognition that they deserve. no longer will ar cake policies -- archaic policies limit the potential of capable and qualified service women. talent and determination of our service women. and i am proud to stand behind them. and i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. this week marked the retirement of john guerrero, who has covered politics for the erie times news for more than three

decades. john joined the times news in 1981, after graduating from college. his stories have focused on just about anything you can imagine, from local, state and federal politics, education issues, to stories involving court cases and those involving gambling. with background on so many issues, it is common for john to follow up on action here in washington, with questions about how it might impact the area region. mr. speaker, i've long followed his work in the newspaper, but had the chance to truly interact with john in 2013 when he spent several days with congressman mike kelley and myself here on capitol hill. i was glad to talk with him about representing pennsylvania's largest congressional district, about priorities and concerns across the district, often lead to policies discussed here on the house floor. i wish john the best of luck in retirement and congratulate him on a wonderful career. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to call attention to the issue of gun violence that has seized our nation. a little over a month ago, my hometown of san bernardino fell victim to gun violence and was added to a list that no community wants to join. aurora, newtown, chattanooga, charleston, and the list goes on. and that's the problem. the list goes on. the only action congress has taken to address the epidemic of gun violence has been to hold moments of silence in honor of their memory. as a father of two young boys and as san bernardino's voice in congress, i cannot be silent. mr. aguilar: we owe it to our communities from san bernardino to newtown to do something. as one of the family members mentioned earlier in the week, and i quote, congress has offered their thoughts and

prayers, but thoughts and prayers are cheap when you have the power that they have. while one single law could not have prevented the horrific events in san bernardino, that doesn't justify a refusal to take action or to make our community safer. thank you, and i yield back the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is rouse for one minute. -- recognized is for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, terror has come to my hometown of houston, texas. the f.b.i. arrested 24-year-old omar, a palestinian born in iraq who came to the u.s. as a refugee. he has been indicted for providing support to isis. a terrorist organization. he applied for full citizenship and when he did he lied on his application saying he wasn't

associated with terrorist organizations. the evidence shows that he's a troll for isis. prior to coming to america, he had been trained to operate machine guns. the administration says that the 31 state governors who want to turn away unvetted refugees have no right to refuse them. that's why senator cruz and i have introduced a state refugee security act of 2015. this legislation will give state governors the right under the 10th amendment to deny the entrance of unvetted refugees to their state. congress must take immediate action to support those states that have refused to participate in the refugee resettlement program, because of serious security concerns. this case shows that f.b.i. director was right. america cannot properly vet refugees. the interest of foreign refugees should not be more important than the safety of citizens in the united states. and that's just the way it is. yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? mrs. maloney: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, the jobs numbers released this morning are excellent. this is a very strong way to end 2015. the numbers are a reminder of just how far we've come since the long, dark days of the bush era recession. the economy added 292,000 private sector jobs last month. businesses now have added jobs for a record 70 straight months. the unemployment rate stands at 5%. half of what it was at the peak of the recession. and the gains are becoming more broadly shared. the unemployment rate for african-americans fell 1.1% last month, it now stands at the lowest level since 2007. of course there is much more that needs to be done. we must make sure that every

american family benefits from this recovery. some of my colleagues across the aisle would continue their efforts to cast doubt on the obama recovery. i urge them to look at the numbers. and yield back. -- and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i'd like to commemorate the retirement of one stu wit. he was retiring from the commercial air and space port in california. started his career and went on o a naval career where he flew f-14's and fa-18's. he then flew b-1's, f-16's and the yf-23. but i knew stu as a person who took the air and space port in

mojave and put it on the map. he talked to me early in my legislative career in california and said, i've got a bill, this bill has never gone anywhere, it's never even got a committee hearing, but i want you to run it. so we did. and that bill turned into the indemnification law of california, which allowed private space flight to happen in california. without that leadership, california would not be on the map for private space flight. and i believe that today, without stu wit, california would probably have lost out to other states in the union. so i'd like to say to stu wit's retirement, we know we're going to have great things in the future. we know what you've done in the past. and we look forward to your exploits for the advancement of aerospace in america. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. moore: thank you, mr.

speaker. you know, over the years, i've heard some rather absurd comments from my republican colleagues about abortion. i mean, some have compared planned parenthood to drug dealers, abortion factories and the ku klux klan. i've even heard grown men debate legitimate rape on live tv. i've heard a republican lawmaker put forth the claim that if women are allowed to have abortions, men should be allowed to rape. after nearly 30 years of public office, nothing really surprises me anymore, mr. speaker. so you can imagine my lack of astonishment when my dear friend and colleague from wisconsin, sean duffy, rolled out abortion statistics among african-american women to lecture black legislators like me about defending the welfare of our constituents. you know, since the united states supreme court ruled in 1963 that women are guaranteed the privacy and power and right

to make medical decisions concerning their own bodies, anti-choice legislators have been trying to end safe and legal abortion. a tactic that's been part of their strategy is to use inflammatory racial arguments and deseptemberive claims to stigmatize abortion in communities of color. you know, i don't expect representative duffy to understand why his comments are offensive, but what he and so many of his republican colleagues fail to acknowledge is the underlying context behind high abortion rates in african-american communities. high rates of abortion are related to poverty and lack of access to quality care. the war on women's health centers has resulted in multiple barriers to access hese quality, affordable ms. moore: representative duffy's hypocrisy is off

evenings i have. if he wants to fight for the homeless he should join us. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? mr. fortenberry: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the rules of the house prohibit members engaging in personalities. the chair cannot give an advisory position on that. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> for months americans have

been demanding stronger f.b.i. ackground checks on syrian and middle eastern refugees entering the united states. a syrian refugee was arrested in houston, texas, just yesterday. rather than taking action to ,ddress these national security president obama believes it is more important to increase f.b.i. background checks on law-abidingally can citizens. this round of unconstitutional executive actions is a new low for this administration. their overreach on law-abiding americans show how misplaced their priorities are. sadly, it confirms what we have learned that's correct this is a failed president with a very distorted sense of the real world. mr. speaker, putting the safety and security of the american people means ending this

administration's refusal to secure our borders, refusal to respect the right of law-abiding americans to exercise their first and second amendment thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. reichert: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, tomorrow is national law enforcement appreciation day. and i would like to take this this time to thank the men and women who put their lives on the line each and every day to keep our communities safe. as a former cop of 33 years, i know what it means to leave your home and not know what i'm coming back. my family knows that.

early in my career, there was a big question mark, i found myself in a fight of my life, 23 years old being attacked by a man with a butcher knife and came home. years later i lost a partner who was ambushed, shot and killed. two years later, i lost a good friend an academy colleague who was stabbed to death in 1984. d sadly, these deaths of police officers are occurring each and every day. and so i want to take this time to mention the last two in washington state who have given their lives, sacrificed their lives for the good and protection of our community. officer rick silva and detective brett hanger of the washington state patrol. mr. speaker, we should take this

time, especially tomorrow and in the coming weeks to stop and say thank you to our law enforcement officials across this country for putting their lives on the line each and every day to keep our families safe. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? mr. fortenberry: i would like to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, i wanted to say good-bye to a good friend who died this week, charles francis clifford junior. mr. chuck was a world war ii veteran and served in the navy for 35 years where he attained the rank of captain. he spent his professional career with state farm and along with his loving wife ann they together raised four children. chuck lived an honorable and full life. he served his country faithfully

and was devoted to his family man,aith and he was a kind always with a smile. after ann died seven years ago, chuck continued to be a presence in our community volunteering at our church and received requests to tell his story about living through the depression and his service in world war ii. chuck clifford was an example of manly steadiness and goodness. he was my friend and i will miss him. well done good and faithful servant. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: one of the great honor this body can extend an invitation.

as co-chairman of the friends of egypt caucus we have delivered a letter to the speaker of the house, speaker ryan, urging him invite the egyptian president. he came to power amidst chaos and restored order and was elected as president of egypt. he is a pivotal figure in the middle east during this time of great danger. he is a champion of the egyptian people and a friend to the people of the united states. most importantly, he is a voice for respect and reconciliation between people of all faiths. thus, he is a force for peace and stability in a region plagued with terrorism and religious persecution. he and the people of egypt have earned our moral and strategic support. i now would submit for the record the official request that the friends of egypt caucus have made of speaker ryan to invite

the president of egypt to address a joint meeting of the congresses. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. stivers of ohio for today and mr. young of alaska for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. he requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: at this time, i would like toll yield such time

as he may use to the gentleman from nevada. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hardy: mr. speaker, this is our first week back after spending the holidays in our districts while we were meeting with our constituents and enjoying the company of our loved ones, the federal bureaucracy was firing on all cylinders, cranking out thousands of pages of regulations. . speaker, i hold in my hand what -- our regulators were doing over christmas eve and in my other hand, i'm holding 298 pages of our our federal regulators were doing on new year's eve. this breakneck speed of activity

deep within the bowls of our executive branch topped off a record year of the federal register of government regulatory and other actions, a grand total for 2015 was 82,035 pages of regulations. this leaves the current administration with the annual page count of nearly 80,000 per year and puts it on pace to contribute more pages of regulations to the federal register than any other administration in american history. mr. speaker, this is a per version of our founding fathers' intent and disservice to the american people. article 1, section 1 of the constitution vests all legislative power in congress with the united states. congress of the united states, not with regulatory agencies. article 1, section 8 of the

constitution vests all the power andake all laws in congress not with regulatory agencies. article 2, section 3 of the constitution clearly states that the president shall take care that laws be faithfully executed. that means an executive agency execute the laws that congress intended, not that they make their own. mr. speaker, there is no ambiguity, federal laws get made right here on this floor and in the other chamber and no where else. but over the past 228 years, the founding principles have been manipulated with this massive expansion on the federal government's role during the new deal, agencies were awarded rulemaking authority through the acts of congress. this statutory authority was granted to allow our federal agencies to better implement the

law in a growing complex nation. but it was not a blank check. unfortunately, far too many here in congress have been complacent -- complicit in delegating our sacred lawmaking authority to legions of unelected bureaucrats. how can this be? we are the first branch of government, the branch that is closest to the people. we are directly accountable to our constituents and it is because of that accountability we must reclaim that constitutional duty to make all laws. that is why i'm a proud original co-sponsor of the reins act and why i voted to pass this bill last year. it takes an important step of requiring congressional approval of all major rules. this is a huge improvement of the current stat cuss ".

the default standard for all major rules should be rejection unless congressesally approved not acceptance until rejection. the congressional review act is a failed attempt to reclaim our exclusive legislative authority, rejecting one single rule on eringo no, ma'amic chairs in 20 years is unacceptable of the we need more laws with more teeth. the bills we passed this week will help in this effort. mr. speaker, something needs to change. churning out thousands of rules and tens of thousands on the register each and every year is hamstringing our economy and crushing our businesses. according to a study done by the national association of manufacturers, complying with

the federal regulations cost americans $2.028 trillion in loss economic growth each and every year. that's 12% of our g.d.p., down the drain. as a former small business owner, i can tell you that mom nd pop shops aren't powering over the federal register and aren't doing it on christmas leaf. unlike large corporations that afford armies of attorneys to navigate through the complex federal bureaucracy, small businesses are left hanging out to dry. as the people's house we are advocates for the people we represent. we serve them. we are accountable to them. we owe it to the people to go on record and vote on major rules that impact their daily lives. i challenge any president or elected official to say that the

american people don't deserve the right to hold their government accountable. with that, i yield back the remaining portion of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. news surfaced today, there's a .tory from ed morrissey as the state department released a smoking gun in the hillary clinton email scandal in a thread from june, 2011, hillary clinton exchanges emails with jake sullivan, then her deputy chief of staff, and now her campaign foreign policy advisor, in which she impatiently waits for a set of

talking points. when sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with the secure facts, hillary then orders sullivan to have the data strip of its markings and sent through a nonsecure channel -- stripped of its markings -- markings and sent through a nonsecure channel. and it's noted in the email, if they can't turn into nonpaper with no identifying heading and send nonsecure, unquote, the article goes on to say, that's an order to violate the laws of handling classified material. there's no other way to read that demand, regardless of whether or not sullivan complied, this demolishes hillary clinton's claim to be ignorant of marking issues, as well as strongly suggests that the other thousand-plus instances where this did occur likely came under her

direction. fox news noticed, also noticed the email this morning, although they don't have a copy of it linked, and it's quoting, however, one email thread from june, 2011, appears to include clinton telling her top advisor, jake sullivan, to send secure information through insecure means. in response to clinton's request for a set of since redacted talking points, sullivan writes -- writes, they say they've had issues sending secure facts. they're working on it. clinton responds, if they can't, turn it into nonpaper with no identifying heading and send nonsecure. ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows clinton saying she was surprised that a diplomatic officer named john godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on libya policy

after the fall of muammar gaddafi. the article goes on later, did those talking points get illegally transmitted on hillary clinton's order? if so, then sullivan my mayweather find himself in legal -- then sullivan may find himself in legal trouble too. paragraph g, quoting from the law, makes it clear that, quote, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy, unquote. this splaints why more than -- explains why more than 1,000 pieces of classified information have found their way into hillary clinton's unauthorized and unsecured email system, and why the markings have been stripped from them. hillary herself apparently ordered the code red, so to speak. in an update, the author says, there are a few people wondering whether the t.p.'s or

talk points in question in this thread were classified in the first place. there are a couple of points to remember in that context. unclassified material doesn't need to be transmitted by secure facts. if the material wasn't classified, sullivan would have just faxed them normally. ordering aids to remove headers to if a -- aides to remove headers to facilitate transmission over unsecured means strongly suggests the information was not unclassified. on top of that, removing headers to avoid transmission security would be a violation of 18 u.s.c. 1793 anyway. which does not require material to be classified, only ensitive to national security. also, the state did leave this document unclassified, but that's because there isn't any

discussion of what the talking points cover. they redacted the subject headers with b-5 and b-6 exemptions invoked to note that the freedom of information act demand doesn't cover the material. ordering the heading stripped and sullivan's apparent reluctance to work around the secure fact system makes it all but certain that the material was classified at some level and hillary clinton knew that. just breaking news of interest. but, mr. speaker, a matter of grave concern continues to rise, stemming back from a man was born, named abdul rahman al amoudi.

and this is from discoverthenetworks.org. mr. al amoudi immigrated to the united states in 1979. that would be the same year, mr. speaker, you will recall, that radical islam declared war on the united states, attacked ur embassy in tehran, took over 50 americans hostage, and held them for over a year. that same year, that year, 1979, is the year mr. al amoudi became -- he came to the united states and then he became a naturalized u.s. citizen in 1996. in 199 -- i'm sorry, 1981, he founded the islamic something -- society of boston.

it's not in this article, but i've also seen the documentation of his founding. and it's, i think, worth noting that the islamic society of boston that mr. al amoudi unded, founded the two mosques in boston, one of which produced the tsarnaev brothers, where they worshiped and earned more about islam. this article says, from 1985 to 1990, mr. al amoudi served as executive assistant to the president of the saar foundation in northern virginia. in 1990, al amoudi founded the american muslim council, the following year, he established the american muslim armed

forces and veterans affairs council. whose purpose was to, quote, certify muslim chaplains hired by the military, unquote. during the 1992 presidential election cycle, al amoudi courted both the democratic and the republican parties. when bill clinton emerged victorious, al amoudi increased his donations to democrats. he went on to serve the clinton administration as an islamic affairs advisor and a state department, quote, goodwill ambassador, unquote, to muslim nations. in 1993, the defense department certified al amoudi's american muslim armed forces and veterans affairs council as one of two organizations, along with the graduate school of islamic and social sciences -- sciences, authorized to improve

and endorse muslim chaplains. among the chape lanes endorsed by -- chaplains endorsed by al amoudi's group was james yi, who eventually would be arrested in 2003 on suspicious f espionage. mr. speaker, it's very reassuring that this man arrested on suspicion of espionage here in the united by mr. al ertified amoudi's group. in march, 1993, al amoudi disparaged the federal government for the, quote, flimsy, unquote, evidence it sed as a basis for arresting muhammad solomai, a suspect in the world trade center bombing in february of 1993. he was later convicted and sentenced to life in prison on

what apparently mr. al amoudi thought was flimsy evidence. goes on. n 1995, al amoudi helped president clinton, interesting verb that, helped, al amoudi helped president clinton and the american civil liberties union develop a presidential guideline entitled, quote, religious expression in public school, unquote, which established a legal justification upon which the aclu would file lawsuits that restricted christians or christmas celebrations and removing nativity scenes from public schools. al amoudi made numerous controversial statements during the 1990's and early 2000's, including in 1994 he said,

hamas is not a terrorist group. i have followed the good work of hamas. in 1996, march, al amoudi said, he was honored to be a member of the committee that is defending islamic association of palestine, or i.a.p., ounder, who in 1997 would be deported from the united states because of his hamas-related activities. i really consider him to be from among the best people in the islamic movement, that's a quote from al amoudi. work d, hamas and i together with him. al amoudi continued to work with the clinton administration to find good muslims to work in the government, he told a

meeting of the i.a.p., quote, i think if we were outside this country, we can say, oh, allah, destroy america. but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. you can be violent anywhere else, but in america -- anywhere else but in america, unquote. in october, 2000, al amoudi attended an antiisrael protest under theites -- anti-israel protest outside the white house where he proudly declared himself a supporter of hamas and a supporter of hezbollah. and apparently there's video of that. in 2000 al amoudi literally began making regular trips to libya where he met with government officials to discuss strategies by which they could create headaches for saudi arabia. in january, 2001, al amoudi attended a conference in beirut with leaders of numerous

terrorist organizations, including al qaeda, hamas, hezbollah and islamic jihad. in june of 2001, al amoudi was a guest speaker at a northern virginia conference, where senior islamic militants from throughout the middle east were gathered. many of the speakers denounced the zionist entity that aims to destroy the muslim community. that same month, al amoudi attended a briefing on president bush's faith-based initiative and the white house invited him to the post-9/11 prayer service on september 14 at the national cathedral in washington. in september, 2003, british custom officials arrested al amoudi at heathrow airport as he was returning from libya in cash -- $340,000

to finance a plot involving two u.k.-based al qaeda operatives intending to assassinate saudi crowned prince. was extradited and ently he airport. t dulles with amoudi in custody, they released a transcript of a telephone conversation which he lamented that no americans died during al qaeda's 1998 bombing at the u.s. embassy in kenya. he recommended that more operations be conducted like the 1994 hezbollah bombing of a jewish cultural center in which

people died and clearly articulated his objective of turning america into a muslim nation. al amoudi was indicted for not only his illegal dealings with libya but also for tax evasion and immigration fraud. he ultimately pled guilty to and was convicted of being a senior $1 eda fineser who funded million into that organization and acknowledged that he pocketted almost $1 million for himself in the process. in october of 2004, he was sentenced to 23 years in federal prison. during the holy land foundation for relief and development trial of 2007, which examined evidence of the holy land foundation's fundraising on behalf of hamas,

the u.s. government released a ist of 300 of the unindicted co-conspirators and joint venturers. amoudi was named on that list. in addition to the affiliations, amoudi has been a board member of the american muslims for jerusalem, the american task force for bosnia, board member for the council for the national interest foundation, a director of the council on american islamic relations, care, which has very open access to the highest officials, including the president. they are the ones that got langley to call off a two-day seminar on radical islam and got the rules changed so that people that were american experts on

islam could not talk to any government -- u.s. government group about radical islam unless they got approval from people like those that care approved of. so care. we are talking also about a named co-conspirator in the holy land foundation trial in which onvictions were obtained where principals in the holy land foundation were supporting terrorism. and i would humbly submit that had eric holder not become torney general and president obama not become president of the united states, many of those co-conspirators would then have been indicted and tried as

supporters of terrorism. instead a new president and a new attorney general came in and instead of being indicted, tried for supporting terrorism, as they were named and the district federal court in dallas and fifth circuit court of appeals said in opinions there was plenty of evidence to support that they were co-conspirators. well, the new administration dropped the matter and these people became helpful to the administration and advising on islam. it also notes that mr. al amoudi was a founding trustee of the council of north america. board member of the interfaith impact for justice and peace, regional representative which was a named co-conspirator. a board member of mercy

international, president of the muslim student association of the u.s. and canada, a board member of the somali relief fund, secretary of the muslim brotherhood, affiliated success foundation and director of the taliban international aid association. in an article back in 2004, andrew c. mccarthy noted that amoudi was sentenced to 23 years of imprisonment for terrorism financing, false statements on its naturalization petition and tax violations. wassentence imposed, amoudi influential in the american muslim circles and thus in washington. he participated in several political charitable organizations, founding the american muslim council, was an enthusiastic supporter of hamas and hezbollah.

the federal government admitted him a key role in selecting the islamic clerics who administer in the military and in the prison system. over the years, he occasionally traveled the globe a as a representative of the u.s. state department. as we know, he traveled to libya and engaged in financial transactions with the gaddafi government and collected $341,000, which were designed to be routed back to his causes in the u.s. without the knowledge of american authorities. all of those activities violate the international emergency onomic powers act, imposes terrorism-related sanctions prohibiting unlicensed travel to and commercial with libya. i want to insert here that it had to be very convenient for

mr. al amoudi, this convicted supporter of terrorism, to be working for the state department as he went to different untries and continued to conspire to support terrorism as the state department funded his travel on its behalf. ,ut also found was this article uthor was brian blum qunch uist, june 27, 2003 and it's an ticle about the esteemed senator, chuck schumer, schumer jails and out of armed forces. militant muslim imams are

preaching a distorted hateful form of islam to u.s. soldiers and federal prisoners creating a, quote, dangerous situation, unquote. senator charles schumer charged yesterday. schumer said the problem is that the pentagon and the federal ureau of prisons select muslim imams on the advice of islamic groups in the group of the if i natical strain of the religion. quote, while the potential influence in the u.s. armed forces is not well documented, these organizations have succeeded in ensuring that militant wahbiism is the only form of islam that is preached to the 12,000 muslims in federal prison, unquote. schumer said at a senate hearing

on extremist wahabi islam. in february, the new york prison system barred its top muslim chaplain from its prison facilities after the imam said the 9/11 hijackers should be reated as martyrs. quote, the imams flood the prisons with anti-american, pro-bin laden videos. he point of a prison is to rehabilitate violent prisoners. mr. schumer is so right. the article goes on, they used the graduate school of islamic and social sciences, which is under investigation for possible funneling of money to terrorists

and the islamic society of north america, which has board members with terror links, schumer charged. american muslim foundation said his amoudi organization had no role in advising the pentagon. al amoudi said he formally gave the advice on selecting imams, but they pushed me out. well, we know that that was not until right before the british government arrested al amoudi and provided the u.s. government plenty of evidence to show that al amoudi was supporting terrorism. that's why i was so shocked since the f.b.i. got information from britain, gather their own information that have been gathering since at least 1991 on

lamic beginnings here in the united states that. during the bush administration, the f.b.i. would have a partnership outreach program with the council of american islamic relations, in which mr. al amoudi was a board member. care was a named co-conspirator for superioritying terrorism, which the courts have said there is plenty of evidence to support that they are. and while the f.b.i. gathered such evidence, they were outreach partners with this organization, care named as a the holy tor with land foundation. pentagon e from admits chaplains from muslim brotherhood group, published

march 6, 2014 by aaron kline says the u.s. army and air force selected two muslim chaplains from a program run by an islamic group closely tied to the muslim brotherhood that was named by the justice department as an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to raise money for hamas. m.d. broke the story in 2011 that the council is the official endorsing agency for the u.s. armed forces muslim chaplain program. w.m.d. further reported that year that the muslim chaplain program was founded by terrorist spoorting convicts while the army's first islamic chaplain has been associated with a charity widely accused serving as an al qaeda front. now it has announced that two of

its former applicants for chaplain cy were selected to serve on active duty in the united states army and air force. quote, the significance of this news is that the department of defense has not selected an endorsed chaplain in active duty in over 15 years. the chaplain services director, the agent said in a statement that the two chaplains selected for active duty are ready to serve allah and the country making the statement in that order. after speaking by phone with both soldiers it was clear that both were ready and eager to serve allah and their country. soldiers as ss our

they are in the corps, unquote. while the new chaplains' ties has received more attention in the conservative blogs in recent days, missing from the conversation is the larger partnership between the u.s. military and not just isna but other terror-tied groups. the isna endorsing agent has been accused of serving as an al qaeda front. since the muslim chaplain program's inception in 1993, isna and since 1993, which was the year in which we had another terrorist attack, that being the first attempted bombing or the first bombing of the world trade center in an attempt to bring it down and kill tens of thousands

of americans. any way, since the muslim chaplain program's inception isna has been the endorsing agency. in 2005, they initiated a yearly muslim chaplain conference that includes leadership talks in the military and u.s. prison system. north american islamic trust reportedly holds the mortgages on 50% to 80% of all mosques in the united states and canada. isna was founded in 1981 by the saudi-funded muslim students association, which was founded primarily by or partially by

the muslim brotherhood. the two groups are still partners. w.m.d. previously attended an m.s.a. or muslim student association event at which violence against the u.s. was urged by the speakers. quote, we are not had americans, unquote, shouted one speaker, muhammad fahid, at queensberg community college in 2003. quote, we are muslims. the u.s. is going to deport and attack us, it is us versus them, truth against falsehood, the colonizerses and masters against the oppressed, and we will burn down the masters -- master's house, unquote. mr. speaker, with that kind of comments coming at their meetings, it's so wonderful that principles from these organizations have such close ties with the current leadership in the country and the white house, in the state

department, in the justice department. this article goes on, isna was named in may, 1991 muslim brotherhood document, quote, an explanatory memorandum on the general strategic goal for the group in north america had, unquote, as one of the brotherhood's like-minded organizations of our friends, that's in quotes, who shared the common goal of destroying america and turning it into a muslim nation, according to discover the networks. islam scholar describes isna as, quote, one of the chief conduits through which the radical saudi form of islam passes in to the united states, unquote. according to terrorism experts, isna, quote, is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation, unquote, that publishes a bimonthly magazine,

"islamic horizons," that, quote, often champions militant islamist doctrine, unquote. the group also, quote, convenes annual conferences where islamist militants have been given a platform to insight violence and promote hatred, unquote. states emerson. emerson cites an isna conference in which al qaeda supporter and p.l.o. official was invited to speak. he further reports that in september, 2002, a full year after 9/11, speakers at isna's annual conference still refuse to acknowledge osama bin laden's role in the terrorist attacks. also, isna's held fundraisers for terrorists, notes discover the networks, after hamas leader was arrested and deported in 1997. isna raised money for this

group. the group also has condemned the u.s. government's post-9/11 seizure of the financial assets of hamas and palestinian islamic jihad. isna, meanwhile, has an extensive relationship with the obama administration, which recently announced it is open to diplomacy with the muslim brotherhood. mr. speaker, this is where i have to say, having visited with leaders in the middle east , muslim leaders who are actually friends of the united in official, open meetings, but when we get in private, they ask the question -- why does your u.s. administration continue to support the muslim brotherhood? do you not understand the muslim brotherhood has been at

war with the united states since 1979? and you've got friendly muslims that want to help you, i would submit that the current president of egypt is one of those, and yet you are insisting on helping the muslim brotherhood that is at war with the united states. oh, not with violence yet. but they claim they're getting so much accomplished in taking over the united states, without violence, that they don't want to use that yet. that will come later, if necessary, but right now they're doing such a good job as advisors and in important positions in the administration, that they should not be using violence. well, back to the article. isna, meanwhile, has an extensive relationship with the obama administration, as we've said. the relationship began even before obama took office. one week before last year's presidential inauguration, and,

again, keeping in mind this article is from 2014, one week before last year's presidential inauguration, the national director of isna's office for interfaith community alliances, was part of a delegation that met with the directors of obama's transition team. the delegation discussed a request for an executive order ending torture. isna president represented american muslims at obama's inauguration. where she offered a prayer during the televised event. she also represented isna at obama's ramadan dinner at the white house. in june of 2009, obama's senior aide invited the president of isna at the time to work on the white house council on women and girls, which obama's senior

aide leads. that's what you want. you want someone who supports the muslim brotherhood's idea that women don't have rights, they have no business showing their face in public or driving or having property rights, yeah, that's what you want advising the white house on 's issues, for heaven's sake. the article goes on, one month later, the justice department sponsored an information booth at an isna bazaar in washington, d.c. also that month, jarrett addressed isna's 46th annual convention, according to white house records, jarrett attended as part of obama's outreach to muslims. in february, obama's top advisor on counterterrorism, john brennan, came under fire for controversial remarks he made in a speech to muslim law students at an event sponsored by isna at new york university. in the speech, brennan, who later became c.i.a. director, stated that having a percentage

of terrorists released by the u.s. return to terrorist attacks, isn't that bad? since the recidivism rate for inmates in the u.s. prison system is higher, according to brennan. he also criticized parts of the bush administration's response to 9/11 as a quote, reaction, some people might say was over the top in some areas, unquote. that, quote, in an overabundance of caution, we implemented a number of security measures and activities that upon reflection now we look back after the heat of the battle has died down a bit, we say, they were excessive, ok? unquote. it was reported, brennan stated at the isna organization event, that the obama administration is working to calibrate policies in the fight against terrorism that assure americans are never profiled.

speaking at the question and answer session, brennan, who now heads the c.i.a., declared himself a, quote, citizen of the world. we need to be looking at ourselves as individuals. this is c.i.a. director brennan. not the way we look at -- not the way we look or the crede we have or our ethnic background. i consider myself a citizen of the world. unquote, brennan said. brennan told the audience, the obama administration is trying to, quote, make sure that we as americans can interact in a safe way, balance policies in a way that optimizes national security, but also opt mizes the opportunity in this country never to be profiled, never to be discriminated against. yeah, that's right. sure. if you hate america and you

want america's western lifestyle and freedoms destroyed, you want women subjugated, we shouldn't profile people just because they want america destroyed. as part of their religious beliefs. that kind of thinking gets a nation in trouble. and thus we are in trouble. well, this article published this week, january 5, 2016, from jennifer hickey, ripe for radicalization, federal prisons a agreeding ground for terrorist, say experts. , here we are in 2016 substantiating the statements that senator chuck schumer made prisons 03, that our have been for years now a

breeding ground for radical islamism. and under both republican and democratic administrations, we have allowed people who have been named and for which the federal courts have said there's plenty of evidence to support that they are co-conspirators in financing terrorism and supporting terrorism, we've allowed them to pick imams, approve imams, put imams in our military, and in our prison. so is it any surprise that 13 years after chuck schumer raised that issue, that since nothing has been done about it, that the federal prisons are a breeding ground for radical islamists. this quote from representative stephen fincher, my friend from

tennessee, says, over the years our federal prisons have become a breeding ground for radicalization. what t is supportive of chuck schumer said years ago. and in fact, this article by carol brown, december 5 of 2014, americanthinker.com. prisons are breeding grounds for jihadists. muslims comprise 15% of the prison population. this number far exceeds the percentage of muslims in the general population. it is 18 times greater, to be exact, so there are 18 times federal prison than the percentage of muslims in the general population. that raises issues and questions, problems.

put another way, there are about 2.4 million muslims in the united states. 350,000 of them are in jail. that means more than 12% of muslims in america are incarcerated. republicans on the number of prisoners who convert to islam vary and are framed in different ways. some sources estimate 40,000 prisoners per year convert. others put the numbers closer to 135,000 per year. some posit that 80% of inmates who, quote, find faith while in prison, convert to islam. unquote. one thing is for sure. the majority of those who convert to islam in prison are black, with as many as one in three black prisoners converting. the number of hispanic prisoners converting to islam is also on the rise. these numbers are staggering and the implications are serious. as will be addressed further in the article. there are numerous reasons why conversions to islam are

skyrocketing in our jails. many prisoners feel angry, disinfranchised and, yes, even victimized and wronged by society. many harbor a deep disdain for america. there are, therefore, prime targets for recruitment to religious ideology that shares many of these same attitudes. in addition, islamic teachings are often framed as a noble code of ethics to live by, case in point, the nation of islam s the largest prison ministry. i'm sure they're meaning that the largest prison ministry in the united states. r. speaker, this is going on as i speak, it's going on for the 13 years since chuck schumer brought it up in the senate.

we don't appear to have learned any lessons from this. y friend, dana rohrabacher, is pushing that we invite the president of egypt, presidential cissy, to come speak to a joint session of congress. he believesg to it would be a good idea. our majority whip, steve scalise just met with the president of egypt. i'm thrilled he did. he is a muslim leader that understands the muslim brotherhood is a threat to freedom in egypt and america and in europe. it's time we did something about it to protect ourselves. you don't have to profile

muslims, but you should be profiling those who are studying ists.adical islam and yet this administration will not allow our justice department, our intelligence department and agencies, our state department, people at the white house, will not allow them to be educated on radical islam. so of course you're going to be admitting a woman who takes a an's name, a man's name that indicates a terrorist islamic jihadist from hundreds of year malik, our homeland

security we have run off people who are brilliant on the issue, run them out. and the message is clear, you better not study radical islam and not know anything about radical islam in homeland security because if you do, we'll run you off. they were looking for anything. our country is in trouble. there are people who want to destroy it. and it's ridiculous that anybody still has to say, we know all muslims are not terrorists. of course they're not. but it is ridiculous to continue o allow and even courage radical islamist imams in our prisons to transform prisoners into radical jihadists that are

going to go off like a bomb figuratively and literally at some point down the road. we have got to look at our immigration policy when it comes to continuing to allow people like alamoudi that hate america, that considers himself a person who could help bring about the global caliphate, a person who is financing terrorism, to have his wife come and have a child here in america. the former president of egypt, before he started to radicalize that country and taking power on to himself as if he were a dictator, his wife had a child here. do you think that child was being brought up to love america. do you think alamoudi's child

was being raised to love america while parents were scheming to errorize it? my friends on both sides of the aisle discuss the proprietyy or improprietyy of the president issuing an order. a man who led staffers in muslim prayers right here, capitol hill, whol hill staffers led in prayer by a man who ultimately the president himself considered so dangerous, he had to take him out with a drone strike in yemen because he was so dangerous to the united states. he had to take him out with a bomb strike. how was he an american citizen? his parents, who raised him to

hate america. came to america on a student visa, studied here, took him back to yemen and taught him to hate america and he became so dangerous that even president obama felt he had to order a strike on an american citizen without a trial, without due process, take him out with a drone because that american citizen, an american citizen only because his parents came here on a visa, was too dangerous to do anything else. it's time we started protecting our homeland. and we need an administration that will do it. and in closing, mr. speaker, let me just add, reports have been hat the obama administration

used the n.s.a. to spy on members of congress to help it keep the iran deal -- the iran treaty in play. mr. speaker, we have got to get to the bottom of that. if it turns out that our president was unconstitutionally spying on members of congress, i don't care -- they may have been democrats. doesn't matter. if he was spying on members of congress using the n.s.a. or any other government agency to spy on members of congress, we need to find out if it happened and if he was, he needs to be removed from office, period. otherwise, we can't save the nation. i hope and pray those

allegations are not true. i hope and pray that the president of the united states did not have the n.s.a. spying on members of congress to help him with the iran deal, help him as he was supporting the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world. i hope and pray it's not true. but we need to find out. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to not engage in personality comments relating to the president. 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

the clerk: to the house of representatives, i am returning here with my -- without my approval h.r. 3762 which

provides for reconciliation pursuant to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016. herein referred to as the reconciliation act this legislation is not only repeal parts of the affordable care act but would reverse the significant progress we have made in improving health care in america. the affordable care act includes a set of fair rules and stronger consume brother texts that have made health care coverage more affordable, more attainable, and more patient centered and it is working. about 17.6 million americans have gained health care coverage at the -- as the law's coverage provisions have taken effect. the nation's uninsured rate now stands at its lowest level ever and demand for marketplace coverage during december, 2015, was at an all-time high. health care costs are lower than expected when the law was passed and health care equality is higher with improvements in patient safety, saving an

7,000 lives. this has changed the country for the better, setting it on a stronger course. the congressional budget office estimates that the legislation would increase the must remember of uninsured americans by 22 million after 2017. the council on economic advisors siment -- estimates that this exemption in health care coverage could mean more than 900,000 fewer people getting care, people having trouble paying other bills due to higher health care costs and potentially $2,000 in more additional debt. this would cost millions of hardworking middle class families the affordable health coverage they deserve. reliable health care coverage would no longer be for everyone. it would return to being a privilege for a few. the legislation's implications extend far beyond those who would become uninsured.

for example, about 150 million americans with employer-based insurance would be at risk of higher premiums and lower wages and it would cause the cost of health coverage for people buying it on their own to skyrocket. the reconciliation act would also effectively defund planned parenthood. planned parenthood uses both federal and nonfederal funds to provide a range of important preventive care and services, including health screenings, vaccinations and checkups to millions of men and women who visit their health centers annually. long-standing federal policy already prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion, except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of a woman would be in danger. by eliminating federal medicaid funding for a major provider of health care, h.r. 3762 would limit access to health care for men, women, and families across the nation and would disproportionately impact low income individuals. republicans and the congress

republicans have tried to undermine the affordable care act by voting to repeal basic protections that provide security for the middle class. members of congress should be working together to grow the economy, strengthen middle-class families and create new jobs because the harm this bill would cause to the health and financial security of millions of americans, it has earned my veto. >> as president obama prepares for his state of the union address on tuesday, he released this video on tweeter. president obama: it's my last one. and as i'm writing i keep thinking about the road we have

traveled together the past seven years ago. that's what america is great. our ability to come together as one american family and pull ourselves closer to the america we believe in. it's hard to see sometimes in the day-to-day noise of washington but it is who we are and that's what i want to focus on. >> c-span's coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern with senate historian and real clear politics looking back at the history and tradition of the president's annual message and what to expect in this year's address. and then at 9:00, our live coverage of the president's speech followed by the republican response by south carolina governor and your reaction by phone, facebook, tweets and email on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span dorgan reair our state of the union coverage and the republican response starting at 11:00 p.m.

eastern. also live on c-span 2:00, we'll hear from members of congress with their reaction to the president's address. and house foreign affairs committee chairman ed royce spoke at the american enterprise institute today for about an hour. >> good morning everybody. we are starting on time for once and i'm pleased to welcome congressman ed royce chairman of the house foreign affairs committee. we have an hour to talk about

national security, the plans ahead, all of the challenges we face, all the solutions you have in mind and the president's state of the union next week. i'm not going to take another second, except i would like to welcome mrs. royce. i'm delighted to have her here. over to you. mr. royce: state of the union is coming up here. the seventh state of the union and we have had seven years now f policies that focused on the befriending our enemies and distancing ourselves from our allies, ignoring our allies and the consequences of that, i would just give one example. if we think back to 2005, there was a historic opportunity in iran to are are are are have ar chance at reaching out to the people of that country who had gone to the streets after a

stolen election and many of you remember the early broadcasting you saw, that young woman on the street who was shot by the authorities. and the con see consequences of a society, 2/3 of the people wanted a western style democracy and just had been robbed of an election. and we had the president make his strategic calculus not to do the reagan thing. not to reach out in support of the people. but instead to decide that the engagement would be a long-term engagement with the eye tolla. otollah and we saw a situation was made to embrace the muslim brotherhood, the muslim brotherhood that had been

funded partially by iran but distance ourselves from egypt, from the people of egypt. and the consequences of these strategies was to leave us in the middle east in a position, in my opinion, where whether it was the jordanians, the israelis or the gulf states, people no longer trusted the judgment of the administration and that's important because that means people no longer necessarily take our counsel. they begin to take things into their own hands or they begin to adopt a new calculus in terms of who the regional head is going to be based upon the assumption that we have now tilted toward iran. nd this reason it takes on a new urgency. in the last few weeks we have seen a series of steps by the iranian regime in which you had violations of the u.n.

resolutions with respect to two missile tests now, in which you see the firing of a rocket near the coast of the uss truman, our carrier. we have seen another american hostage taken hostage. we have discovered recently of attempts to hack into a dam outside of new york city. i remember when we discovered the efforts here by the iranians attempt to assassinate cafe milano. the ambassador from saudi arabia and now you hear iran openly speak of toppling the government of saudi arabia after already seeing their activities in bahrain and yemen where they did effectively topple the government. the question is, who is watching

this? not just our allies all over the world but watching our failure to respond to these actions. and given that, i think it explains a lot in terms of the position we're in around the world. on the foreign affairs committee that i chair, we are attempting to reach back to the old bipartisan consensus that america had in terms of strong engage mnlt overseas, something -- engagement overseas something the a.e.i. supported. we need u.s. leadership. we cannot be in a position where our policy is one of constantly backing down. we have to have a policy of more backbone, not a policy of backing down and that's the crux of the problem today. host: you have a lot on your

plate for the committee. i know you have been talking about what to do about iran specifically. you have been working with your ranking member, mr. engel and north oduced a bill on korea's missile test. that is a nuclear deal at the time touted by bill clinton as the model how to come to a nuclear agreement and now we have an agreement with the iranians. what are you thinking about what can congress do? mr. royce: during that original framework agreement i remember debating the chief negotiator not only for the north korean agreement but also for the iranian agreement. and i would just make the point at we had an example of what could deter north korea.

in 2005 we had a situation where banko delta asia, a discovery by the treasury department that $100 bank notes were being counter fitted. he sanctioned that activity. and he gave a choice to the bank of ma crmpomp w and other banks that served as the conduit for the hard currency. they had a choice between remaining in the international banking system or being cut off and they could bank with north korea. they made a decision against banking suicide and all decided they would freeze the accounts for north korea. what were the results? we discovered afterwards that for example, the missile

production line that the north creevens ran, they couldn't get the hard currency they needed to buy the black market gyroscopes. it came to a complete halt. more importantly, not only was the dictator not able to pay his army or his secret police, wasn't able to pay his generals. that is not a good position for a dictator to be in. and as a consequence every meeting after that started with one question on the part of north koreans, when do we get the money and the hard currency. unfortunately treasury was not left in the position of making the key decision on this. unfortunately, that decision was made by the state department and they lifted as part of the negotiation in the hopes that north korea would come back to the table.

the legislation that i have offered which will come up tuesday will take exactly that policy from 2005 and put it back into law. we will put that bill on the president's desk with strong bipartisan support. it passed unanimously out of my committee. and this is the approach that will work because you need consequences. the idea of strategic patience which is how the administration defines its current strategy with north korea means patience while north korea goes forward with test after test until it fully develops its icbm program and its delivery capability and right now they could hit the united states. we don't want them to succeed. put them on the cone of those icbm's and threaten us. host: has the administration ta

taken a position on that legislation? mr. royce: i haven't heard. i'm hoping that the strength of the vote behind it changes their calculus with how to deal with north korea. host: you defined a mechanism that the financial spigot was closed and now opened and now several nuclear tests. we are about to open the financial spigot on implementation day with iran. what do you see the options for the congress to address the violations that you described of the u.n. security council resolutions and the threats that iran is posing in the region? mr. royce: i'm going to try to move legislation that will address those issues, but i would like to revisit the discussion that i had with the secretary of state, myself and elliott engel in which we advance legislation based upon stuart levy's work that would ive him a choice compromise on

his nuclear program or financial collapse and that legislation had strong bipartisan support. i go back to the post-world war these is that we had in the united states. we put that bill together and we passed it out of the house of representatives with a vote of 400-20 and our request to the administration is that they allow that bill -- this was in a prior congress to come up in the senate. but instead the administration did the calculus and felt that they had to extend an olive branch. our argument was well, at least have this in reserve. if you are negotiating with north korea, let's have something in reserve for which there would be consequences if

they do not follow through. allow us to bring the bill up in the senate. clearly we had more than enough votes for a veto override in the house and 65 senators that had shown an interest in the approach we were taking. the bill was blocked by the administration. as a matter of fact, as i recall that session, no foreign policy initiatives came up in the senate because the senate leader at the time, reid, was concerned that this would be attached to it and would get to conference or it could get to the president's desk. i think this was an absolute blunder. and i think we've got to get back to the issue of whether or not there are going to be consequences, one of the things we were assured of if we went forward with this agreement, it would be enforced and a secondary argument that was made on the floor of the house of

representatives is look, there are already u.n. sanctions in place. we'll enforce those if we see a oflation of either the issue icbm testing. we have had two violations and what happened? the administration began to move forward with some some partial sanctions, informed us in congress and as soon as there was pushback from iran, they pulled it back. also, we were assured that there would be no lifting of sanctions against those who were involved in terrorism. irgc and several banks in iran that have funded the icbm program that the iranians run as well as terror. our point is why aren't we sticking to the letter of the agreement?

why do we continue to fall back? we put legislation out yesterday from the committee to address some of these issues and we will continue to push forward. but it is incumbent upon the commander in this chief in this country to lead when it deals with the national security of this nation. and we haven't seen that leadership. host: i want to come to the question of that leadership and authorization for the use of force. before we leave iran, i want to ask you what your take is on the flair up between saudi arabia and the other gulf states and the iranians over the execution of nimr. mr. royce: here's one of the consequences that the administration has tilted towards iran. what that means is that they are less likely to take our counsel. so when we give advice now, we frequently find -- for example,

helped an kuds forces orchestrate the takeover in yemen of the shia militia there. and a decision was made inry had along with other capitals to put together an force and try to push the iranians out. and you will notice that we were ot included. egypt, saudi arabia, other countries in the region are increasingly making decisions on their own without our counsel. and i think part of that is they now lack the trust and the judgment of the administration with respect to anything dealing with iran. and the other consequences of this, by the way, it makes it

harder for us to get solutions to other problems when sunni and shia begin to separate because of the consequences, again, of actions where had the administration originally in 2008, i guess it was, 2008, was green revolution -- had we led then, we might have a different situation right now on the ground. when they feel strongly that an election has been stolen and you don't speak out and you don't increase the passions to 86%, which is what you could have done with radio free europe, radio liberty, if you don't take reagan's view on this that it's our responsibility to lead, also with public diplomacy, which we could have done eec