cial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of mercy, through whom we see what we can become, thank you for giving us another day. we thank you as so many americans have been challenged and have risen to the exercise of their responsibilities as citizens to participate in the great debates of these days. grant wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to us all. as well as an extra measure of charity. send your spirit upon the members of this people's house who walkthrough this valley under public scrutiny.

give them peace and prudence in their deliberations. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. peters. mr. peters: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker,

i rise today to recognize the 20th anniversary of one of south florida's grooviest communities, my hometown of the village of pine crest. since its incorporation in 1996, the village of pine crest has been known as a family friendly community with many parks and recreational areas and neighborhood activities that are open to all south floridians. the village is committed to sustainable stewardship and environmental sensitivity, keeping it one of the most beautiful places in which to live and work. in celebration of its founding, the residents, schools, public officials, and businesses will joint together on saturday, march 12, for a parade starting at palmetto elementary school and ending with a community picnic at evelyn greer park. i encourage my congressional colleagues to join me in congratulating the village of pinecrest and join our community in celebration of this magnificent milestone. i am honored to represent the families in the village and

dexter and i have been proud to call this wonderful community our home for almost 30 years. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from be in be in is recognized for one minute. mr. ashford: mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate black history month and the countless contributions of african-americans as well as recognizing a man who embodies the best of the celebration. michael maroony is president of the omaha economic development exorpgs. our north omaha community is a vibrant neighborhood, but one still facing economic challenges. michael finds and furthers projects that result in more jobs, business ownership, diverse housing option, and training opportunities. through michael's leadership the city of omaha is making significant strides to lessen the stress and strain of poverty. every american, no matter the color of their skin, should be able to achieve their full

potential. one roadblock to this goal is the supreme court's flawed opinion in the shelby vs. holder case, which significantly weakens the 1965 voting rights act. until congress passes bipartisan legislation to right this wrong, every american's sake considered as read franchise the right to vote is under attack. so this black history month, let us make time to recommit to working together to ensure a better, brighter, and more equitable future for all americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, our nation's correctional officers risk their safety every day in order to keep prisoners, visitors, and other officers safe. in most perfectly prisons there are only one or two officers in a cell block, meaning they are guarding over 130 prisoners with nothing to protect themselves. we have seen the reels of this

situation with the death of correctional officer eric williams, who was murdered by an inmate at a pennsylvania prison. mr. paulsen: more than 2,500 weapons were confiscated from inmates in federal prisons. there is currently a pilot program that allows some officers to carry pepper spray for protection. mr. speaker, this week the house passed the eric williams correctional officers protection act, legislation i supported to expand this program to medium security prisons and require a training course before they can use this pepper spray. we need to provide our correctional officers the tools they need to protect themselves and others. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota yields back the balance of him -- his time. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. san carlos park, florida, june , 2014, maria novice, 29 years

old. allison novice chansezz, -- sanchez, o 10 years ealed. mia, 2. chicago illinois, september 29, 2015, charles lewis, 28 years old. tyrone spikes, 28. an town hardman, 25. iana yardman, 25 years old. houston, texas, november 20, 2013. yassalin, 21. veronica, 17. daniel munoz, 17. long branch new jersey, september 1, 2015. amanda morris, 29 years old. brandon, 7. brian, 4. baker, louisiana, december 11, 2015, perry, 55. joseph allen, 57. mark allen, 51. ottawa, kansas.

april 28, 2013. steven white, 31. andrew, 30. kiley bailey, 21. alana, 1. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the 20th anniversary of the southern technology advocacy resources foundation, the star foundation is unbelievable capability to transform lives in coastal georgia. in y founded the foundation 1997 with regard to providing computer training to residents in brunswick, georgia. it has expanded the teaching life, financial, and work readiness skills that lead their students to be successful members of their community and

the work force. now the star foundation's eight-week course is opened to students outside of public housing as well as residents of macintosh and camden counties. over 1,000 students have graduated from the star foundation and 70% of their graduates improve their employment status within 15 months of graduation. some outstanding students can even receive a personal computer for their home. i'm grateful for the work that the star foundation is doing in the first congressional district of georgia. and i wish the program and its graduates success for many years to come. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for one minute. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. small business owners make up over 90% of private sector employers in my home state of hawaii and they are the backbone of our economy, both

there and across the country. our close n.i.t. community build built on generations of small business owners willing to lend a hand to a neighbor in need, this is one of the things that makes our state so special and that helps to bring the aloha spirit alive both for visstors and others alike. last week i spent time planting kale and beats at a farm with small business owners. i helped them open their cafe where they seek to improve the health and well-being of their community around them by feegged them delicious locally grown food. it's the hard work of people like melia and kevin and the love that they put into their business and work that are at the heart of our economy and communities across the country and in hawaii. as we recognize national entrepreneurship week, this week i want to say thapping you to all our small business owners and entrepreneurs for their dedication and for what they do to strengthen and serve our communities every single day.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, when i was in law school if a person did not turn in a term paper, they flunked. but the former constitutional law professor has missed a deadline required by law. under the bipartisan 2016 national defense authorization act, the president signed -- is required to send congress a real comprehensive strategy to defeat isis. he signed this law. the due date was on february 15, the paper is overdue. confronting terrorism and emphasizing the safety and security of the united states is critical. why hasn't the president complied with the law he signed? where's the plan? where's the strategy? people are being killed by isis.

director of defense intelligence agency lieutenant steward stated that isis, quote, will probably attempt to conduct additional tax in europe and attempt to direct a tax on the united states homeland in 2016. mr. speaker, this is not law school. this is the real world. where terrorists kill the innocent. this president should spend more time developing a plan to defeat isis than planning to close the jailhouse for terrorists in guantanamo bay. i wonder what grade the president, the constitutional law professor, would give himself, the commander in chief, for ignoring this legal requirement to turn in his paper? that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today because the united states senate is failing to serve the american people. this week, senate republicans aknobsed their plan to simply

ignore president obama's nominee to the supreme court. no hearings, no votes, no chance for the public to witness an open and honest debate over the future of the court. this is what the world's greatest deliberative body looks like under republican control. refusing to fill the vacancy until the next relection -- election disregards the will of the american people who elected president obama twice. mr. takano: it also reflects a dramatic change of heart from senator grassley who once said a nominee should be considered regardless of election politics. this is hypocrisy plain and simple. i accept that senate republicans have the constitutional authority to reject the president's nominee. but i do not accept the refusal to even consider that nominee. and the american people shouldn't accept it, either. i yield back, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to recognize the 100th anniversary of the penn state potter county extension, which connects those in the agriculture industry with the tools and the knowledge to build and grow their farms. this landmark university will be celebrated at the extension's annual black and white guolla this saturday, february 27. agriculture continues to be a major industry in potter county and also played a big role in county's heritage, especially when it comes to poe tate toes. potter county is the home of poe tate toe city, which was built in 1949 through the efforts of the pennsylvania potato growers, packers, and related industries. it was there that dr. e.l. nixon, uncle of president richard nixon, worked on the development of new types of potatoes for crossbreeding. to this at this potato city is

a tourist destination for people across the commonwealth. they also continue to be sold across the united states and in many foreign contrifments i congratulate the extension on 100 years of serving local farmers. i wish them continued success in the few tumplete thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i rise in recognition of national eating disorder awareness week. ms. graham: millions of americans across the country are suffering from eating disorders. it affects their health, their happiness, and can take their lives. i understand what they are going through because i personally struggled with an eating disorder as a teenager and a young woman. i am speaking out today in the hopes of raising awareness and

providing hope. i want other young men and women who are struggling as i did to know that they, too, can overcome this. i want to tell them that i know it's difficult, but don't wait to seek out help. mr. speaker, by raising awareness, promoting treatment, and with early intervention, we can save lives. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> 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 the bill h.r. 2406. without objection. the speaker pro tempore: -- the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2406 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other urposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, february 25, 2016, all time for general debate had extired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 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 recommended by the committee on natural resources printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 114- 429. 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's now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wittman: mr. chairman, the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: the clerk will report the amendment -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 offered by mr. wittman of virginia. the chair: mr. wittman and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. this manager's amendment makes tech neckal changes, subject to propriation and eliminates the pittman-robertson -- title

12, signed into law last year. the manager's amendment adds an important new title. the open book on equal access to justice act, which makes that law more transparent. the equal access to justice act, or eaja, was originally passed in 1980 as a social safety net program for seniors, veterans and small businesses. it was designed to pay back these little guys for the cost of suing the federal government in a once in a lifetime event. however, special interest groups have used eaja as a way to be reimbursed for lawsuits when they can't be reimbursed under the nation's environmental laws. these illegitimate reimbursements not only cost taxpayers money but they tie up our land management agencies, chasing procedural lawsuits instead of doing their actual job. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. wittman: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise in

opposition to the manager's amendment although i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: i take a minute because since we have no amendments on lead bullets or lead in fishing that the only time this may be germane to clear up an issue from our debate yesterday evening. my good friend from virginia, mr. wittman, mentioned about shooting ranges, especially, bullets end up back in the ground. i just wanted to clarify and let me quote from the science for environmental health network that in the environment many chemicals are degraded by sunlight. destroyed through reactions with other environmental substances or me tap lies by naturally occurring bacteria. some chemicals, however, have features that enable them to resist environmental degradation. they're classified as persistent and can accumulate in soil and aquatic environments. metals such as lead, mercury

d arse neck are -- cannot be broken down. lead in soil or drinking water can be in fetuses, infant children resulting in impaired brain development. mr. chair, i want to get it in the record that the lead will not degrade once it hits the soil in hunting or fishing and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, yields back. the gentleman from virginia, -- the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: mr. chairman, i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. chair, amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-429 offered by mr. beyer of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chair. h.r. 2406 would increase federal assistance made available in the pittman-robertson for construction, operation and maintenance of recreational shooting rangers -- ranges. i am a big proponent of recreational activities and i know the value of shooting. with these privileges come certain responsibilities and one of those responsibilities is to ensure we are not creating a situation where dangerous people are allowed to hone their shooting skills on the taxpayer's dime. my amendment today -- taxpayers' dime. my amendment says, if you receive federal assistance by way of this act, then you must have a policy, a notice of some sort in place stating that no person who is prohibited by

federal law for possessing a firearm is allowed to use a shooting range. nothing in this amendment creates new gun laws. nothing in this amendment would infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners. nothing in this amendment is onerous in any way. we're simply saying that the federal government should not be in the business of subsidizing dangerous people and improving their marksmanship or creating space where convicted felons feel they can operate outside the law and endanger law-abiding sports men and women. the federal government has the obligation to keep people safe, and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, seek recognition? mr. wittman: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition of the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you. this amends the definition of public target ranges in title 2 and the definition of public target range in pittman-robertson funding. this amendment is unnecessary

because it prohibits behavior which is already against the law. this is impractical. administers of public ranges would not know who is good or not. requiring background checks would largely undermine the other purposes of the bill, like expanding access to ranges. this amendment does not distinguish between public target ranges that allow only archery versus those that allow only firearm use. amendment would prohibit ertain persons access. access to the background check is strictly prohibited by law and cannot screen people just because they want to use a target range. the safari club international oppose this amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time and strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from virginia --

mr. wittman: oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, reserves. mr. wittman: reserves. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chair. with respect for my friend from virginia, there's nothing in the amendment that suggests or requires background checks for people wanting to use public shooting ranges. in fact, just the opposite. all we're asking is that there be a policy or a notice saying that if you're otherwise prohibited from using weapons under federal law that you can't practice, hone your shooting skills on these ranges. mr. wittman and i both come from virginia where we have 17 public target ranges managed by the virginia department of game and fisheries and that those 17 ranges have these -- six public target ranges, they have these 17 rules. these rules include use paper targets only, organize competitive shooting is prohibited, use of unauthorized target materials, such as cans, bottles, clay birds is prohibited and none of these are onerous. all we're asking is an 18th

rule if you're otherwise prohibited from using a gun under federal law then you can't use it at the target range so we're not trying to extend background checks to everyone. it's not what this says. all we're doing is making sure people that cannot otherwise have possession of a gun can't go to a target range, rent one and practice. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i remind the gentleman from virginia who we all have an interest in shooting sports is that there's no evidence to suggest that there's an issue right now with felons using this opportunity to perpetrate crimes at public shooting ranges. i think it's a solution in search of a problem. so we want to make sure there's a balance there and that indeed people have access to these ranges. and with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. federal law prohibits certain criminals from possessing firearms. this amendment assumes that a

criminal who's forbidden from possessing a firearm who then breaks that law and possesses one anyway will then obey a law that says he can't bring the illegally possessed gun to a shooting range. i have news for the author of this amendment. the last place a criminal wants to be is on a shooting range where he's surrounded by law-abiding and armed citizens. criminals prefer gun-free zones where decent people can't fight back. so what's the real purpose of this amendment? i think it's twofold. the first is to comply that gun ranges are brimming with criminals who are honing their skills to go on ram pages. that's an in-- rampages. that's an insult to those who use shootings ranges. but second and more disturbing, it is to put the owners and managers of shooting ranges in an impossible legal position. how are they supposed to comply with this law? the gentleman says oh, they

don't need to do background checks of every consumer. but what else are they then supposed to do in order to abide by this law? require a two-week waiting period to make reservations? how long before leftist legal firms begin suing these gun ranges for failing to do due diligence and thoroughly probing the background of their customers? we have many laws on the books to prohibit the illegal use of firearms and to prohibit criminals from possessing them. that's the problem with criminals. they just don't obey our laws. but instead of putting them behind bars where they can't put -- hurt anyone, the left seeks to make it increasingly difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. it shouldn't surprise us that the sum total of these laws is more gun violence and not less. i urge the house to defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, is recognized. mr. beyer: and mr. chair, how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, has two

minutes -- 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. beyer: mr. chair, all i need is just a few seconds to point out to my friend from california that many of the things he objects to are irrelevant and not germane to this amendment. we're not asking for background checks. we're certainly not setting up a structure where lawyers can sue things. we're simply asking for a policy or notice in place, as many other policy or notices are in place at shooting ranges around the country that recognize that federal law prohibits certain people, some dangerous people from possessing or the use of firearms in the united states, especially the shooting range that is being funded by the federal government by pittman-robertson. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd want to remind folks that the law prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm, from using it at a public range. the acquisition or possession

of a firearm by person subject to 18 u.s. code 922 section g under any circumstances for any purpose is already a federal felony so i think the law already covers that as to who and who cannot use a firearm. saying you can't access a public range is secondary to the primary violation of the law. so i think that's already covered if you're looking at making sure that guns aren't put in the hands of those folks that are convicted of these crimes. so, again, i would rise in strong opposition to the amendment, encourage my colleagues to do the same, to oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. beyer: mr. chair, i'd request a recorded vote on the amendment. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-429 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. . ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. let me thapping the rules committee for making my am in order and mr. wittman and mr. beyer for their leadership on this issue. let me state for the record i'm from texas there are many fish hemen, hunters, and sports persons. we are also a people that understand unto whom much is given much is expected. my amendment speaks to that very issue. , amendment number

3, strikes a loophole which would allow a handful of hunters to import polar bear trophies into the united states . let me provide for my colleagues simple bit of information. most people do not know but polar bears are officially classified as marine mammals and as such are included under the 1972 marine mammal protection act. they are also listed under the u.s. endangered species act, affording the iraqonic animals further protection against hunting, capturing, over the past few years these laws did not stop a handful of healthy individuals from flying up toe canada to bag a trophy polar bear for their collection back home even though they were warned that u.s. law would prohibit the importation of skin, heads, and other products from bears they were hunting. in 1994 well funded hunting

interests convinced congress to amend the act allowing in a limited number of bears from trophy hunts but only if the animal came from a designated population that could withstand the loss. in 2007, the fish and wildlife service issued a proposal rule to list the polar bear as threatened. this continues. and in the humane society letter that is supporting my amendment, it is indicated that, in fact, we may lose 2/3 of the polar bear population by 2070. my amendment is smart, it is right, it is humane. it responds to the conscious and the rightness of this contry. i am saddened to see these lovely animals, if i can call them that, to become trophies to make someone else feel good. i ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of taking care of what god has given us. with that, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wittman: i rise in

opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you. this amendment strikes a provision of the share act that will allow the importation of 41 polar bears legally harvested from sustainable populations in canada before the polar bear was listed as threatened under the endangered species act. i'd now like to yield to the gentleman from alaska, mr. young. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: it always interests me when some people try to undo something that's already occurred legally. legally these bears were taken under license of the canadian government. legally they should have been allowed to be imported. and then as secretary kempthorn put the polar bear on the threatened species. they are not endangered. we have studies now, the polar bear population has increased not decreased. but the point is these are 41

hides that were shot legally by individual hunters under the auspicious of the canadian law. with proper guiding facilities, proper taxi determiney facilities, and these bears are dead. why would you want to say -- by the way, these dead bears, as they come to the united states, create moneys to take and help conserve the rest of the live bears. if i was out buying something and given to it and declared illegal later on and i can't keep it? this is silliness. this is a good part of this bill. it rectifies something was done legally for hunters that did their hunting legally. now to say for humane purposes, for protection of the polar bear, we are not going to allow those 41 hides to come back into the united states that were shot legally. we are not going to collect the

money we use to take and save polar bears. from these legally shot bears. this is not about the future. by the way, the fish and wildlife sort of likes this program. i am always amazed somebody is going to save a species that's not endangered. in fact, it's not threatened, because they are going to save dead bears from coming into the legally. tes shot i oppose this amendment. taste a mischievous amendment. it's an amendment that was making the humane society. of course they are going to support her amendment. but the fact is these were shot legally. they should be allowed to be brought back into this country as they were shot under the government of canada. so let's take and reject this type of amendment. let's stick to the facts not something else. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining?

the chair: the gentlewoman from texas has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from virginia has 2 1/2 minutes also. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank you very much. i ask unanimous consent to place the letter from the humane society in the record. but scientists estimate as i indicated we may lose 2/3 of the polar bear population by 2050, and therefore we as custodians of these very precious animals should do all we can to protect a vanishing species from extinction instead of incentivizing trophy hunters to kill as many as possible in advance of pending e.s.a. listings. this is a critical measure tone sure the long-term viability of imperiled animal. let me also cite for the record the appeals upholds the endangered species act for the polar bears. let me suggest to my lesion we saw an unfortunate circumstance a few months ago when cecil the lion was killed out of mistake

or i didn't know, but this giant of an animal, this reflection of the idea of the importance of the animal kingdom, was killed. i introduce h.r. 3448, cecil the lion endangered species act. it is similar to what i have today. i ask my colleagues to support t the chair: the gentlewoman's request will be covered by general leave. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: i would like to reiterate something mr. young said. there is a $1,000 importation fee that is assessed on all 41 of these trophies. those dollars go to polar bear conservation and research. we are looking to use these efforts to continue the promulgation of this species. we want to make sure polar bear population continues to grow. hunters provide, i believe, the largest measure of conservation of any group out there that are looking to preserve polar bears. it's in everyone's interest to make sure that those things happen. we have a number of groups out

there that are in support of this bill. the congressional sportsman foundation. the national rifle association. the national shooting sports foundation. safari club international. all those organizations deeply committed to make sure that we continue and grow these species. we want to make sure we understand that. but hunters are the best conservationists on the planet because they are involved in making sure the species continue. they use their resources to put into species continuation. they want to make sure these species are properly managed. that we have good science in managing those species. i believe this is what we want. we want to make sure we are encouraging that. this amendment does not allow us to do that. it strikes those provisions. i would strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentlewoman from texas has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: there are a rit litany of organizations

that support this amendment. the alaskan wildness league. animal welfare. let me just cite with respect to lions over the last 75 years we have lost 90% of lions because we did not have the restraint. african lions. i would make the argument let us not do that to this. when we let go and let free, we'll find out they'll go beyond the 41. they'll be going after trophy bears. we need this to ensure the protection of all those -- does the gentleman reserve? does the gentleman have any other speakers? mr. wittman: i reserve to close. ms. jackson lee: are you the last speaker? mr. wittman: yes. ms. jackson lee: let me ask my colleagues to take into consideration the importance of our responsibilities of preservation. trophies, money. i can assure you there are a bounty of humane organizations that will provide any amount of dollars to do the research that is necessary to protect this

vulnerable population. they are enlisted on the endangered species afpblgt they are vulnerable. these trophies should not be an indication of the american people bringing polar bears who may themselves find that they are extinguished and no longer because we believe that trophies are more important than studying the species, growing the species to the extent that scientists and others can restrain them and make sure that we do have a population within the realm and reason of supporting the echo cycle we need. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. with that i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. -- the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: i want to reiterate that polar bears are not in danger. they are not on the endangered species list. these 41 trophies were harvested in canada. they have a world class management program for polar bears. they use the best science. these polar bears were taken in

2008. based upon the science canada was using to manage the program. the polar bears in canada both at the time and now are increasing in population. canada does a great job in managing this. this is just a situation where polar bears legally harvested under the best management programs available should be allowed to come back to the united states. i would encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed . to ms. jackson lee: with that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed.

the chair: it's now in order to consider amendment number 4, printed in house report number 114-429. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california eek recognition? >> i rise as the designee for our colleague, representative becauses to. i have a mefpblgt the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in house report number 114-429. offered by mr. costa of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from california, mr. costa, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. costa: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 4 be printed in the house report 114-429, be modified in the norm that i have placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the modification. clop modification to amendment number 4, printed in house report number 114-429, offered by mr. costa of california.

modify the amendment to read as follows, page 19, line 24, strike 7 and insert 8. page 20, line 19, strike colon and and insert semicolon. page 20, line 21, strike the period and insert colon, and. page 20, after line 21, insert the following, the, triple i, administrator of the small business administration or designated representative. the chair: is there objection to the modification? without objection, the modification is agreed to. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa: mr. chairman, representative bustos and i would like to thank congress member beyer and wittman and the rules committee for allowing us to present this amendment on the floor. this amendment would help ensure that the interest of small businesses that rely on wildlife conservation and recreational hunting continue to thrive.

as established by this bill, the wildlife and hunting heritage conservation council advisor committee, part of this legislation, their duties would include advising the secretaries of interior and agriculture and policies and programs that help increase the participation in hunting and wildlife conservation activities and promote awareness of the importance of both wildlife conservation and the economic benefits of recreational hunting. there's no question that recreational hunting as economic benefits. in 2011, hunters put 38.3 billion dollars into our economy. the small businesses across the country that cater to the needs of these hunters and wildlife watchers be they stores, hotel, trail guides, are bed rocks of our local economies that are near our public lands. we know that. as is, however, though, none of the governmental bodies set to

serve on this advisory committee that is being proposed is a part of this legislation represent the perspective of the needs of these small businesses. small businesses are our economic engine theans driving our economy. we know that. it has been that way for years. this would have the administer to be listed as a member of this advisory committee. having a representative from small business administration or their designee will strengthen the voice of small businesses that rely on tourism associated with hunting or shooting or sports or recreational or wildlife activities that this legislation intends to promote. so my colleague, representative bustos and i, ask that you join us in supporting this small business amendment, ensuring

they have a seat at the table by supporting this effort, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. does any member rise to claim time in opposition? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa: i reserve the balance of my time and i ask for an aye vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment, as modified, is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-429 offered by mr. smith of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 619, the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missou. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of the numerous hunrs in my district who have called me very frustratedvery hunting season that the national forest service, witno cause, no rationale, and no reason closes down the access to hunt in the mark twain national forest. with gates, locks and chains th limit the residents of cetral and southeast missouri -- with this amendment we would like to add the mark twain -- onal forest to the chair: the chair would

advise that amendment number 5 is pending. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, that is the amendment that i'm on the purpose of is amendment, i've been contaed by numerou folks in my district of not having proper postings of corridors within the national park system whenever they decide to chain random gates. this amendment would require the nation forest service to publish signs of anhunting corridors that they decide to close. and with that i reserve the rest of my time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman from missouri's amendment -- for what purpose does e gentleman from virginia seek recognition?

mr. smith: i claim back and i yield to the chairman. the chair: so the gentleman from missouri is recognized. the gentleman from missouri yields time to the gentleman from virginia. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to state we support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. smith: i close. the chair: the gentleman from missouri yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-429 for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. meng: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-429 offered by ms. meng of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. meng, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. meng: thank you, mr. chair. this amendment would allow u.s. fish and wildlife service law enforcement officers to be placed in diplomatic posts abroad in an effort to combat the illegal killing of african elephants. honestly, this is an activity in which the fish and wildlife service already engage in. what the underlying bill does in section 1004, however, which i think is commendable, is explicitly authorize this activity in law for the first time. unfortunately, i feel the authorization is overly narrow because it allows only one s.w.s. -- f.w.s. officer to be placed in one country at a time. i think this is likely a drafting oversight and simply wish to allow more than one f.w.s. officer to be assigned to a foreign country at a time. let me be clear. this amendment does not mandate that multiple officers be sent abroad. it does not authorize any additional funds for these

activities, and it does not require an increase in any way on the number of f.w.s. officers placed abroad. it simply allows more than one f.w.s. officer to be placed in a single country at any given time. in reality, this amendment could, should we wish it, result in a net decrease in the number of f.w.s. law enforcement agents placed abroad, resulting in lowered cost to the u.s. government for these activities. imagine a scenario in which elephant poaching and ivory trafficking was running rampant in 20 different nations and we wish to assist in the combating of these activities by leveraging the expertise and experience of u.s. fish and wildlife service officers. as written, we would only be allowed to place one officer in each country for a total of 20 total officers deployed internationally. what if the secretary of interior determined, however,

formulating a task force of five specialists who would be deployed jointly, as needed, would be the best possible course of action to combat the poaching of african elephants? as written, the share act would force this task force to be split up and housed in five different african nations. the amendment before us, however, would permit the entire task force to be housed under one roof. at the end of the day, housing the entire task force in a single location could be much more effective strategically and it could result in significant savings to the u.s. government if it is housed in the nation with the lowest cost of living. mr. chair, no matter how one may feel about the broader bill before us, i feel that section 1004 of the bill is a worthwhile section, and i hope you will support my amendment seeking to improve it. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york reserves the balance of her time.

does anyone rise to claim time in opposition of the amendment? the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. meng: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. huffman: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 114-429 offered by mr. huffman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. today i'm offering an amendment to the share act to direct the government accountability office to delve deeper into an important issue and that is the ivory trade which has sparked international concern.

last year my home state of california became the third state in the country to approve tougher -- joining new york and new jersey in that regard. the new california law, ab-96, closes a loophole that had allowed the import of ivory harvested from animals killed before 1977. this loophole made a ban on the import of elephant ivory nearly impossible to enforce because distinguishing between pre and post-1977 ivory products would require expensive testing. the california law included a ban on the growing trade on mammoth ivory. this is ivory discovered in siberia and elsewhere made easier because of warming weather and melting tundra due to climate change. there's growing concern that chinese ivory traders are passing off illegal elephant tusks as mammoth ivory in order to avoid international elephant ivory bans.

but distinguishing between mammoth ivory and elephant ivory requires technical testing which makes, again, enforcement of an elephant ivory ban very difficult unless the mammoth ivory trade is also addressed. now, some argue that despite this difficulty, legal mammoth ivory can reduce the market for illegal elephant ivory. although i don't agree with that, i do understand the concerns, and that's why with this amendment we are simply asking the g.a.o. to study the issue, to look at what various -- what various experts have to say, give us some advice. to make smart policy decisions, we need that kind of information on how a ban on the trade of fosselized ivory from mom oths would affect the illegal importation and trade of elephant ivory within the united states. so i respectfully request your support of this amendment, and i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. does any anybody rise in opposition to -- to claim time

in opposition to the gentleman from california's amendment? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: with that i would request an aye vote and yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 114-429 offered by mr. beyer of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chair. mr. chair, title 14 of this bill would give states and territories the authority to override federal fishing rules in coastal waters, national marine sanctuaries and some

national marine monuments. this is simply not right. places like biscayne national park, hawaii hump back whale national sanctuary, they belong to all americans, not just to the fishing interest in florida, hawaii and american samoa. protection of these special ocean places has overwhelming public support and is recognized by the scientific community as critical to making fisheries more productive. what's more, most of these areas do not even preclude fishing. california's national marine sanctuaries generate more than $140 million a year in economic impact from commercial fishing. recreational anglers spent more than $100 million a year on fishing in the florida keys. i attended the public hearing in homestead, florida, last year on closing a very small part, less than 6% of biscayne national bay, to -- for marine national monument simply to bring the fish back. many fishermen hadn't seen in years.

the fish is not the only important use of these waters. whale watching, new york cityling, scientific research, these all generate enormous benefits. not to mention the impact protecting coral reefs and other habitat has on stabilizing our oceans and our fisheries in the face of global warming. sometimes it's necessary to protect certain areas of the ocean, particularly those that have been overfished in the past or are particularly sensitive to fishing impacts. if we want to support a wide variety of uses and keep our oceans healthy. science says this benefits fishermen. it strikes title 14 of h.r. 2406 and leaves fisheries in the marine parks, sanctuaries, up to the federal agencies charged with managing these resources in trust for all americans. we would never think of allowing wyoming to set hunting rules for yellowstone, but without this amendment, this bill would allow the same thing to happen for ocean parks that are every bit as magnificent.

i urge a yes vote on my amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek time in recognition -- seek recognition? mr. mcclintock: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: we must restore the federal government as a good neighbor to the communities impacted by the federal lands. the founder of the forest service advised his foresters to look what the public stands for if it's right and if they don't stand for it postpone action and educate them. that's essentially what this bill does. it says that the federal government needs to listen to states and territories before imposing fishing regulations in state waters. this amendment would strip this language and says in effect, we don't care what local communities think. we know what's best. it speaks volumes about why states and communities are openly revolting against federal lands policy. and advised us to get rid of

pride or attainment or superior knowledge. i would commend that advice to the gentleman from virginia and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia -- from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you. with respect to my colleague, friend from california, i don't think that's the way the system works. in fact, right now fishing limitations are developed in coordination with their respected states and territories, they're just not given final blanket veto power. the park service and research and management and full participation, my only personal experience is with the biscayne bay. whether it's many, many public hearings, the public was fully involved. fishermen, en, -- pro and con, were involved in it. we don't want to eliminate close partnership but avoid giving the states and territories the ultimate veto power over what are essentially national decisions. mr. chair, i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. . the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much. i thank my good friend for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in strong pposition to this amendment. we know the natural resources committee is a rowdy one to manage lots of difficult decisions and inflamed passions. i thank chairman bishop and the subcommittee chairmen and all the members for doing a great job nenshuring that the american people -- ensuring that the american people are the beneficiaries of our amazing public lands and waters. this title 14 language that would be stripped out of the underlying bill by this amendment was taken from o my bill, the preserving public access to public waters act, which has 36 bipartisan co-sponsors, including nearly 2/3 of the florida delegation. now, floridians understand the importance of balancing

environmental recreational and economic considerations along our coasts because our state is the fishing capital of the world. with that balance in mind, we work to carefully develop and tailor this language so it would only apply to a very small area of near shore waters with deep importance to fishermen. my colleague and this amendment sponsor himself said in the committee markup that, quote, the national park service and the national marine sanctuaries cover a neglectable percentage of waters within traditional state jurisdiction, end quote. he's right we are talking about a relatively small area, but these waters have outsize importance to the folks living in nearby communities. in my district, the national park service is attempting to close over 30% of biscayne national park's reefs to fishing in perpetuity as part of its new general management

plan. and in opposition to the scientific and management expertise of the f.w.c., florida's fish and wildlife conservation commission. f.w.c. has worked for over a decade to develop mutually agreeable and scientifically supported fishing restrictions that stop short of a full closure in these areas, but the national park service has completely disregarded the state's authority to manage its own fishing resources in disbane national park. rather than work with the florida's fish and wildlife conservation committee, what the national park service do? they decided to abdicate its responsibility to the american public to try to balance environmental recreational and economic considerations. instead, the national park service kowtowed to the whims of a single special interest group that bankrolled tens of

thousands of form letters from across the country to high jack the public comment section in favor of closing fishing access to state waters upon which local fish american depend. that is not the proper use of the public comment process. it is not in the best interest of south floridians. it is not in the best interest of the american people. it is not reflective of how we should manage public waters. let me be clear, the title 14 language in this bill is narrowly targeted. it is simply to keep states involved in the management of their own waters. it does not apply in any way to federal waters. and this language is not anti-environment. it does not roll back any existing environmental protections. nor fishing regulations currently enshrined in law. without keeping this language in the bill, mr. chairman, the example that the national park service is setting in biscayne

national park will create a terrible precedent for other state and territorial waters in similar circumstances. i strongly urge all of our colleagues to oppose this harmful amendment. with that, i reserve the alance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: mr. chairman, how much time defensive remaining? the chair: 2 and a quarter minutes. mr. beyer: in response and with respect to my friend, representative from florida, biscayne bay national park is 164,000 800 acres. these are federal lands, this is a national park, federal waters. and she mentioned that only -- they are going to close 30% of the reefs. it's very important to note that the reef that existed 100 years ago is down to only six% that's -- 6% that's left.

the whole purpose is to actually serve that special interest, the fishing interest of florida, who desperately need the revival of the fish. we founded the public hearing at least half of the fishermen there were foreclosing it. all the fishermen pointed out that the water was so far away it was fished at all. the worry was the precedent not the specific part that's closed. we point out that biscayne bay itself is only less than 2%, 1.4% of all florida's waters. this is a very tiny part. but the point here is not for any special interest but to revise, study after study has shown that where these marine sanctuaries are created, the fish recover much faster more than scientists expected. this is for the long-term benefit of the fishing community, hunters, anglers throughout the world. especially serving the larger interest of the american public. mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman eserves.

the gentleman is the only member with time remaining. mr. beyer: i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important amendment. we resist giving veto power over federal decisions to state governments and territorial governments. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. beyer: i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in ouse report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentleman from movement seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report number 114-429, offered by mr. smith of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from movement, mr. smith, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from movement. -- missouri. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. the great outdoors and hunting tradition of the united states are a way of life for folks all over our great contry. throughout our history they have been championed by presidents george washington, dwight eisenhower, and teddy roosevelt who establish national forest, game preserves, and national parks. the shear act continues these great traditions. my amendment, which adds mark twain national forest to the list of forests provided in the section, assures to the residents of missouri that no executive order, no executive action, or no bureaucrat sitting in washington, d.c., will ever -- who's never set foot on mark twain national forest, will write a rule

inhibting the rule to hunt or fish in our national forest. this amendment secures our freedoms to be avid sportsmen. folks in missouri don't want an overzell joust administration to come in and dictate to the hunters and ang anglers of missouri. over 1.3 million missourians hunt or fish and many go to the mark twain national forest each year. it covers roughly 2,331 square miles, 1.5 million acres, most of which reside in missouri's eighth congressional district. i ask the body to support the amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. beyer: i'm opposing this amendment first and foremost because it, like so many provisions already in the bill, seeks to prevent u.s. public lands from being managed for the benefit of all americans. national forests are lands of many uses, including hunting and fishing. but how those uses are balanced

should be decided by expert land managers at the forest service through a process that is open to the public, consistent with our national conservation laws, not by a few well connected hunters and their allies in congress. furthermore, the this section of this bill is using dogs to hunt deer. not only is this an ethically questionable hunting tactic, it's wildly controversial in the states listed in this title, as well as in my state of virginia. its opponents are not who you might thifment these are not what was described yesterday as radical leftists. it's the complaints from private landowners. and not overbearing bureaucrats, not environmentalists, that led the forest service to band deer hounding in louisiana's national forest in 2012. don't take my word for it. 2014 column in louisiana sportsman stated that, quote, the boot that finally stamped the life out of deer hunting

with dogs was trespassing on private property. homeowners reported people standing on the public roads in front of their homes with guns waiting for deer to appear. they reported dogs in their property, sometimes attacking their chickens or other livestock. and worst of all, the homeowners reported belligerent and incident behavior by these people standing on the roads, entering their property to retrieve their dogs. missouri's mark twain national forest, the subject of this bill, was the scene of major law enforcement action that found 46 people of illegally hunting deer with dogs in 2013. this despite the fact the practice had been banned in missouri. i urge a no vote and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield to the chairman. mr. wittman: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back. mr. smith: i yield to the gentleman from arkansas.

the chair: how much time? mr. smith: for as much time as he needs. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of this amendment that is a commonsense amendment that prevents scragse against hunters on public -- secretary of transportation against hunters on public federal lands by preventing the forest service creating their own laws in conflict with state laws in neighboring states and privately owned lands. mr. speaker, for many people the public lands on the national forests are the only place they have to hunt. there are many traditions and many different ways that people enjoy hunting in the outdoors in my state as well as others. we already had similar language in the bill for national forests in louisiana, oklahoma, mississippi, and arkansas, and i support adding the mark twain forest in missouri to this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields.

the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chair. i would like to emphasize that this amendment -- this bill, rather the forest service doesn't prohibit hunting right now in the mark twain national forest. it simply prohibits hunting with dogs, hunting deer with dogs. it does this because of complaints from private landowners. not from the environmentalists, not bureaucrats. this is literally respect for the public input that comes from that. i continue to urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is just a commonsense amendment that adds mark twain national forest to the several other forrests mentioned in the four other states. i ask the body to support the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from virginia yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. so many as are in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. beyer: we would request a recorded vote on this. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 114-429. r what purpose does the -- for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10, printed in house report number 114-429, offered by mr. newhouse of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from washington, mr. newhouse, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of my amendment to h.r. 2406, the share act. and urge my colleagues to support its adoption. this amendment is very straightforward. it simply requires the forest service to publish a notice in the federal register along with a justification explaining the decision for the closure of any public road on forest service lands. . now, some of you may why this is necessary and it's understandable. fortunately many americans never had to deal with this issue. however, in my district, in the pacific northwest, and in many federal forests across the country many people have faced the reality that a public road that they have used for decades is suddenly closed. when i say closed, if i could refer your attention to this photograph, there's a picture indicating that a road is no longer even available for use. it's not just a chain going

across the road. however, the reality is far worse. when the forest service closes many of these public roads, they do so by piling gravel, downing trees or both in order to block access. at other times they create what are called tank traps, essentially large ditches dug into the ground that make passage impossible. furthermore, these practices create impediments that not only block human access but can only restrict the movement of wildlife in our national forests. this has become a serious issue in central washington, and for many people who use these roads, it can have detrimental impacts on their everyday lives. whether by making their daily travel much longer or by restricting access to campsites or treasured areas in our national forests. some of these roads have been in use for 70 or 80 years with generations of washingtonians using them for ash sess for recreation. yet -- access for recreation.

yet, the forest service have closed them without telling local residents and the surrounding communities. mr. speaker, i believe the first indication of a public road being closed should not come when an individual or a family is faced with an impasseable roadway but rather through adequate public notice were the forest service. and that is why i have introduced this amendment today. just to be clear, my amendment simply requires the forest service to provide notification when closing a public road on forest service land as well as justification for such decision. this is an important first step in ensuring that rural communities and residents are given proper warning and advanced notice when a public roadway will suddenly be blocked and access to forest service will no longer be available. local residents and communities deserve to know when such an action is taking place, whether forest access will be denied. this amendment will guarantee

the forest service's being transparent in future decisions and closures. at this point i'd like to yield to the good chairman from virginia, mr. wittman. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. newhouse. i'd like to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and i yield back. mr. newhouse: thank you, sir. rural communities deserve better from their government. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back. he chair: the gentleman -- >> i want to compliment you on introducing this amendment. mr. young: these roads were built with taxpayer services and the forest service comes in and shut these roads down so people don't have access to them. we have the same problem in our forest in alaska. no notification and then they'll spend millions of dollars closing a road that the public had access to. and their excuse is, oh, it's our land. we don't have to worry about other people using this road now so we'll just isolate

everybody from it. so i compliment the gentleman for his introduction of this amendment. mr. newhouse: appreciate the comments from the good gentleman from alaska and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: i rise in ambivalent opposition to my friend's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. r. beyer: first, i want to let representative new house know that i appreciate the dilemma you are in and appreciate the motivation for this amendment. my one concern is that it will require the chief of the forest service to publish notice in the federal register along with the justification anytime a national forest system road is closed and that there may be some unintended consequences which we should at least think about. for example, the amendment will require the federal forest service to publish the register notice to close a road that's being engulfed with wildfire or covered with debris after a

torned or jeopardy being swept away by landslide or a powerline is on the road or to prevent militants coming -- from coming and going, as we've seen. the idea, i'm sympathetic to the idea there should be justification for anything that closes a public road that people have used for many, many years, but we don't want to hamstring them from closing roads that are necessary for the public safety. and with that i encourage a no vote on the amendment but reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, i say since this is a bill, the share act is about public access, about use of our treasures, our national forests and public lands. so all we're asking from the forest service is a little bit of transparency, notice so that people aren't caught offguard. certainly there are extenuating circumstances where notice if

there is a downpipeline or debris is in the middle of -- downed powerline or debris is in the middle of the road, that's where notice is even more imperative for the public good. i appreciate the gentleman's comments but still urge my colleagues to support the amendment. now i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman reserves -- the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. fleming: mr. chairman, i

have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 114-429 offered by mr. fleming of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: well, i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 2406, the share act, which would allow hunters better access to and from hunting areas in the kisatchie national forest in northern louisiana. louisiana legislature passed house bill 581 by louisiana representative james arms in 2015. this new state law would allow municipalities to designate certain local roads for use by utility terrain vehicles, also known as u.t.v.'s, or side-by-sides. these are not to be confused with a.t.v.'s or all-terrain

vehicles. they are larger, weigh more, seat multiple passengers and are often equipped with safety features like roll cages, seat belts and enclosed cabs. my amendment would build on the louisiana law to allow seamless, seamless access from these designated local roads into hunting areas within kisatchie national forest. the size of these vehicles makes them more difficult to transport when compared with a.t.v.'s. the ever increasing list of features of u.t.v.'s makes them very attractive for hunters in order to recover game and transport supplies and equipment. the amendment would allow the louisiana secretary of wildlife and fisheries to nominate roads that would be open in the kisatchie national forest travel plan. unless the chief of the forest service determine that such an opening would pose an unacceptable safety risk. if so, the forest service would have to publish a justification in the federal register as to

why the road cannot be open. i believe my amendment strikes the right balance of public safety and hunter access and i urge its adoption and at this time i'd like to yield two nutes to my good friend, dr. abraham. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. abraham: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my good friend, dr. fleming, for introducing this very important amendment. he and i both know that hunting is a major part of louisiana's heritage and culture, and in louisiana, hunters themselves are usually the best steward of our environment. this amendment would give authority to the louisiana secretary of wildlife and fisheries to nominate roads that can be open for utility terrain vehicles in the kisatchie national forest. like dr. fleming said, these vehicles have a minimum footprint and are much safer than traditional a.t.v.'s. they carry game and carry

splice. but far too long they have been -- carry supplies. but far too long they have been prohibited from sharing roads with other users. dr. fleming's amendment would make federal law more consistent with existing state laws of louisiana where these u.t.v.'s are commonly used in a safe and responsible manner. this would allow hunters greater access to roads within the kisatchie forest tribal plan. if the chief of the forest service determines that opening a road to u.t.v.'s would pose an unacceptable safety risk, then they would have the authority to override this nomination. however, they would be required to publish their justification in the federal register. this is important to ensure transparency and accountability in the federal decisionmaking process. the kisatchie national forest is one of louisiana's natural treasures. the citizens of louisiana should not be unnecessarily limited into how they can use this beautiful public space. i urge my colleagues to support

dr. flem's amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time -- dr. fleming's amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. fleming: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chairman. it's a difficult to be debating two doctors on one -- it's difficult to be debating two doctors on one amendment. this amendment, like so much of h.r. 2406, the share act, continues the essential idea we should be turning over decisions that have been made at the federal government level by the national park service, by the bureau of land management, by the forest service to state governments .nd even to local governments this is not on u.t.v.'s. i know that all kinds of transportation continues to evolve. rather, it's the idea we're setting a damage precedent with regard to our conservation laws and regulations that again and

again we're saying that rather than taking a national per expectively, we are turning to the local -- perspective, we're turning to the local folks to decide what's best for the country. this amendment allows the state of louisiana, not the forest service charged with managing kisatchie, for the benefit of the american people to determine where and whether it's permissible to have motorized vehicles. they seek to balance multiple uses and prevent abuses in our national forests. the fact this amendment focuses on off-road vehicles brings to mind the illegal 2014 a.t.v. ride in utah. that's the last thing we want to happen in kisatchie national forest, so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and the precedent it would set and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: i'd like to ask how much time i have remaining, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. fleming: i'd like to just

say in rebuttal to my good friend that, you know, it's very interesting the radical environmental lobby wants to set aside the forest for the enjoyment of humans. the only problem is they cut off all access through their lobbying power by humans to this valuable land, like kisatchie national forest. if we're going to have a national forest, set aside for the american people, let the american people enjoy it. as such, they can't get in there without some type of vehicle. if they have game, they can't get the game out unless they have some type of vehicle. and as for the forest service, yes, of course, the forest service opens for public comment but they still do what they want to do anyway. that's the whole problem. and it's time that we allow the american people to step forward and speak in favor of their lifestyles, particularly the

hunter lifestyle, the sportsman paradise lifestyle that we enjoy in louisiana. then, mr. chairman, i'd like to recognize my good friend, mr. rob wittman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: i thank the gentleman and thank the chairman and urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: i yield back, sir. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd just simply like to close in saying let's think about the american people, let's give the american people access to the valuable and beautiful land that we have here in this nation. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

ing it is now in order to consider amendment number 12, printed in house report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> to present the amendment, mr. chairman. the chair: amendment number 12, printed in house report number 114-429, offered by mr. griffith of virginia the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619. the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes of the the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. griffith: thank you, very much. mr. chairman. this is a civil liberty amendment. its clarifying and strengthening the existing federal law. the amendment is necessary, unfortunately, because while the underlying law protects a traveler who is transporting a firearm under the federal regulation that is have to be locked and out of the reach of the person if they are in a car

in a proper container, etc., traveling from state a to state b, sometimes on the way from state a where gun is lawful, one must pass-through state b where the gun may or may not be lawful. what we have found is that notwithstanding the fact that it's lawful in a and lawful in c and protected in federal law while being transported, some state and local governments have decided that they are not going to follow the federal law and they end up arresting the otherwise law-abidinging traveler. we have examples of this. it's not just that they are out necessarily looking for the traveler, but there are circumstances that occur. one example that happens fairly frequently is an airline passenger has done everything they are supposed to dofment they follow the rules, security rules, and for reasons beyond their control their flight in state b is missed. so they have traveled lawful. they have checked their gun lawfully. they have done everything they are supposed to do. but when they get to the

layover terminal, their flight is either already gone or been canceled. in one case in particular the gentleman was told, you need to go to a hotel. take your bags, come back the next morning. when he came back the next morning, he was arrested by state law enforcement individuals because his gun was not legal. notwithstanding the fact he had done everything he was supposed to do. another very tragic situation, a gentleman has traveling from new jersey to south carolina. he was a veteran, stopped off in washington, d.c., at walter reed to see one of his doctors. he's lawfully transporting it under federal law, he's arrested. while most of these cases end up getting worked out, either as a misdemeanor or they work out some other arrangement, it is still a great impediment on the traveler to use the federal law lawfully. what this amendment does, is it says if that happens, if they are stopped in it by a state and local government, that the prosecutor in that state or local area must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt

this individual was not following the federal law. sound like a pretty reasonable american principle. and if it is determined that the traveler was lawful and they were actually arrested and they have to go to court to defend themselves, the court will award attorneys fees to that individual. we are trying to make them whole. we are not paying them for the fact their vacation plans or travel plans were disrupted. we are just saying there ought to be something that telts local and state government, you-all not do this again. you're going to pay this gentleman or gentlelady her attorney's fees. to me that's taking care of civil liberties and making sure people who are following the law are not wrongfully arrested without any recourse. i see this as a civil liberties amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i would yield such time as he may need to mr. wittman. then reserve the remainder of my tifmente -- time. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: thank you, mr.

chairman. mr. wittman: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: i rise in opposition to this am. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. beyer: mr. chairman, this amendment would weaken current law, undermine state laws, concerning the carrying of firearms, and harm the efforts of law enforcement to take action against illegal firearms trafficking. current law applies only to the transportation of firearm in a motor vehicle. this bill would expand current law to allow a person to transport a gun outside a motor vehicle so long as it is unloaded and locked in a container, or secured with a safety device. this would allow a person to walk down the street with an unloaded gun as long as the gun has a trigger lock on it regardless of the state's laws on carrying guns in public. this amendment would also allow guns on trains, cable cars, and trolleys so long as they are unloaded and locked regardless of state or local laws. this is because trains, cable carks and trolleys are not

considered motor vehicles under applicable federal definition. current federal law gives state governments authority over firearms in these forms of transportation, but the griffith amendment would remove that authority. the proposed amendment would also have a neglect tism pact on our law enforcement officer's ability to enforce our gun laws. specifically, this amendment would make it more difficult for officers to investigate suspected gun traffickers and people who illegally carry weapons. i have here a letter from the police foundation which i would like to submit to the record. the chair: without objection. mr. beyer: theaks presses their grave concerns with this amendment n their letter they say this amendment, quote, will have a chilling effect on enforcement of illegal gun possession and other crimes, end quote. why would congress narrow the limited enforcement tools our police officers currently have to pursue suspected gun traffickers. the griffith amendment subjects the police officer to a personal lawsuit when he or she detains or arrest someone the officer reblen believed at the time of detainment was

illegally trafficking or carrying a fire amplet we must respect our officer's ability to use discretion when determining if gun trafficking is occurring. but subjecting them to personal lawsuits when they are trying do their job to froket us seems a little reckless. -- protect us seems a little reckless. for this reason, i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. i yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend from california, representative hough. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. huffman: i thank the gentleman from california. i'm glad he brought up thedy lema this amendment would pose for law enforcement. it would impose vill pentzes on officer who are trying to do their job but might mistakenly detain someone in possession of a firearm if they were

transporting it in a way protected under this amendment. this will have a chilling effect on law enforcement's ability to protect americans from gun trafficking, to make us safer at a time when there are more guns in the hands of more people than ever before when we have more accidents, when we are experiencing a tragic gun violence epidemic. i'm also concerned that this amendment goes a little further than just a narrow clean up of the anecdotal stories we heard about travelers who were inconvenienced or detained. as i read the amendment, it not only would allow a person to walk down the street with an unloaded gun as long as that gun has a trigger lock on it, regardless of state law, would allow it them to take those guns on trains, cable cars, and -- local en if lool jurisdiction prohibited that. in my case we had a traffic incident a couple years ago where a young teenager had a

toy a.k.-47 and law enforcement believed it was an actual gun that was threatening members of that community. they fired shots that took that young man's life. imagine thedy lema if -- whether intended or unintended as a consequence of this bill, people could suddenly go into parks or even public transportation with real ak-47's, what kind ofdy lema ould law enforcement face? the chair: the gentleman's request to insert material into the record will be covered under general leave. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith, is recognized. mr. griffith: mr. chairman, i have to tell you i'm surprised that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle aren't supporting this civil liberty amendment. will i tell you further they clearly have misinterpreted the amendment. first of all it only apply it is somebody is transporting lawfully a gun where it's lawful in state a to another state where it's lawful. first, if you're going to be on

a trolley car or able car, you have to be transporting that gun from one state to another. it has to have been lawful to begin with and lawful at the term us in. it's only at the interim that would be an issue. i would also say to the gentleman this is not about any personal lawsuit against law enforcement officers, it says the court shall award attorneys fees. that is against the local government or state that's prosecuting the individual and i would say to the gentleman that it's only for wrongful arrest. i practiced criminal law for 28 years. there is a huge difference between detention, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have alleged this bill would affect, and arrest. this bill does not do one single thing. they are simply mistaken on detention. doesn't do anything. if you want to stop somebody, you want to investigate, they may miss their flight. but arrest means they have been placed into custody. they have been taken down to the station. they have been booked. they are having to post bond. that's what this bill deals with. when someone is wrongfully arrested, when they have been

following the federal law, they should, in fact, have their attorneys fees restored to them. it's reasonable attorneys fees. it's not whatever the sky and the moon, attorney might ask for. a court determines if it's a reasonable attorneys fees. this is just a small measure to make sure that when somebody makes a mistake and a local government goes forward with a prosecution, that you get some of your -- you get some of that back. we are not paying you for being in jail. we are not paying you for being arrested. we are not paying you for having your rights taken. i yield back. doip the gentleman yields. the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, is recognized. mr. beyer: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. beyer: we are certainly not objecting to reasonable attorneys fees and making people whole. it's the idea that law enforcement officers can be held personally responsible. can be personally sued for doing their jobs that we object to. i would like to yield one minute to representative sheila

jackson lee from texas. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. one minute. mr. beyer: whatever she requires. ms. jackson lee: i sit on the judiciary committee and i would offer to say to the gentleman and proponent of the legislation that first of all we have a responsibility to law and order and responsibility to protecting the second amendment. we have a responsibility to law enforcement officers. tragically in the backdrop of this debate debate was an individual who secured guns and killed and slaughtered people just last night. we want to make sure that we are safe and as well that we are dealing with issues that are important to protect our law enforcement. first of all, current law, this law, this amendment is unnecessary. federal law already entitled a persons to transport a firearm from one place to nomplete as long as the firearm sun loaded and neither the firearm or any ammunition being transported is

accessible from the passenger compartment, etc. this amendment makes a federal open carry law. this open carry law should be one of the a state's determination. it happens tokesist in the state i'm from. it should not be placed upon the entire country by federal law. why? because whether a gun is supposed to be locked or has a trigger on it, it still poses a threat to our law enforcement. i oppose this lammed because it is unnecessary -- this amendment because it is unnecessary and puts our law enforcement persons in danger. with that i ask my colleagues o oppose that. and acknowledge the shooting in kansas to evidence that we don't need more guns being carried back and forth. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

mr. beyer: we request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in house report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? mr. heck: i rise as the designee for representative joe heck of nevada and have a amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13, printed in house report number 114-429, offered by mr. hardy of nevada. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from nevada, mr. hardy, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada. mr. hardy: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to speak in support of a critically

important amendment being offered by my friend and colleague from nevada, congressman joe heck. this amendment would ensure the inclusion of the text of h.r. 373, the good samaritan search and recovery act of 2015, in the underlying bill. the good samaritan search and recovery act of which i was original co-sponsor, is a commonsense, bipartisan solution to tear down the bureaucratic roadblocks that are preventing greefing families from achieving their closure of their loved ones that go missing on federal lands. this issue was first brought to light in a separate but tragically similar case in las vegas. taxi driver keith goldberg and air force staff sergeant antonio tucker. they were missing and presumed dead. with the remains believed to have been missing somewhere within the lake meade recreational area. in both cases the local experience search and recovery

groups volunteered their time and resources to help locate the remains of the missing individuals. unfortunately, due to the necessary -- unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles when the federal government, the group volunteering to help locate and recover mr. goldberg's remains, as denied access to the park service land to conduct its search for 15 months. the group volunteering to help locate the remains of staff sergeant tucker were denied access for 10 months. . this is absolutely unacceptable and it must change. this amendment will do that. once these bureaucratic hurdles were finally cleared, the good samaritan search and recovery groups were allowed to access to the park land. mr. goldberg's remains were recovered in less than two hours and the remains of staff sergeant tucker were recovered in less than two days.

dr. heck, a former member of the las vegas metropolitan police department, search and rescue team, originally introduced this legislation because he could no longer stomach the cases that where necessary red tape continues with family with similar circumstances. during the 113th congress a similar bill passed the house ith a unanimous vote of 394-0, proving the bipartisan support. unfortunately, the senate failed to take action on the measure. last april, the house again passed the important legislation, 413-0. mr. chairman, those are two votes on this good samaritan bill totals 807 in favor and none opposed. given the current political climate, it just doesn't get more bipartisan than that. we cannot afford to let the senate inaction get in the way of achieving this critical fix that will provide closure for

so many americans. we must pass this amendment so future families won't have to suffer the mental anguish and heartache that families of keith goldberg and tucker did. in closing, i'd like to thank my colleague from nevada for offering the amendment that will help people. i would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the natural resources for all their diligent work, the good smaretan bill and search and recovery act. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. -- samaritan bill and search and recovery act. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. mr. wittman: i'd like to thank the gentleman from nevada, and i urge my colleagues to strongly support this amendment nd yield back. mr. hardy: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd urge my friends and colleagues to support this amendment. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from nevada reserves.

does any member stand in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from nevada is recognized. mr. hardy: i urge support of this bill. i yield. the chair: the gentleman from nevada yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ribble: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 114-429 offered by mr. ribble of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ribble: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ribble: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm proud today to offer the only bipartisan bill that has been found in order on -- bipartisan amendment that has been found in order on this bill. i'm really proud after working in congress now for three terms that members from both the majority and the minority have come together in an effort to protect the endangered species act. this amendment speaks directly to the issue of gray wolves, protected by the endangered species act in the western great lakes region of wisconsin, michigan, minnesota as well as wyoming. there was a period of time that the gray wolves had become almost extinct in these areas. the scientists at the fish and wildlife service decided to protect extinction and listed the gray wolf as an endangered specie. that work was so successful --

species. that work was so successful that in 2011 the fish and wildlife service decided to delist the gray wolf. in fact, there are hundreds of mating pairs in these regions. however, those wolves have created some problems, but in spite of this remarkable recovery, in spite of how robust this is, a surprised federal court ruling took place in 2014 and invalidated the scientists at the fish and wildlife service who were given the responsibility under law of the endangered species act to manage this population. and so my amendment is simple. it just simply restates and delists the wolves in these four states only. and that's what my amendment does and it protects the endangered species act and the scientists who work at the fish and wildlife service, and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment and yield such time as the gentleman from oregon requires.

the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. the gentleman from oregon is ecognized. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. well, that was extraordinary. we are here to protect the endangered species act by preempting litigation for violations of the endangered species act. that's pretty extraordinary. i mean, we're not only having groundhog day because this bill has passed three times before and failed to receive any consideration in the senate and the same thing will happen yet again with this bill, but now we're wandering into "alice in wonderland." that's extraordinary. yes, fish and wildlife did delist in the states the gentleman mentioned, but they required that each of those states adopt scientifically based management plans. well, the scientifically based management plan in wyoming is open season on wolves. let's try and exterminate them

again. and there's also been the tremendous loss of population in a number of the other states that the gentleman referred to. so a judge has found that they violated the endangered species act because they didn't adopt scientifically based management plans. but, you know, these are horrible predators, they are very, very fierce. they are of course responsible for huge, huge, unbelievable -- i'm big, as donald trump would say, big dep redation on cattle deprivation on cattle. 75 died on issues. perhaps we need a -- 7.8% died due to weather. well, we're not having climate change and there's nothing we can do about the weather so we don't want to mess mess with

that. 2.7% due to other predators, mostly due to coyotes. and they named wildlife -- the wildlife services have killed well over a million coyotes, there are more distributed than when they were trying to exterminate them but the wolves are in a much more fragile place. they are responsible for .9% of the deaths. .9%. and they are at critical population levels. they were kept to keep 10 breeding pairs in wyoming. that's a lot. whoa. they violated that and that's why the judge made this ruling. and now we're being told we're here to protect the endangered species act. i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ribble: mr. chairman, i'd like to ask unanimous consent, in light of the gentleman from oregon's comments, to submit for the record a letter from the fish and wildlife service

supporting this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. mr. ribble: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield one minute and one half to the gentlelady from wyoming, mrs. lummis. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. lummis: i thank the gentleman from wisconsin and am just stunned by the misrepresentations of the previous opponent of this bill. let me show you what's going on, really. here is the habitat of the wolf. clearly not endangered on the red list. it's considered a species of least concern. hen, let's look at the habitat of the moose. this is wyoming, montana, idaho and going into montana. the sheerest moose is in rapid decline and it's because of

this critter. now, the gentleman from oregon showed you little puppies as if they do no damage. look at this moose. this moose is surrounded by wolves, and they're attacking that baby and the reason this is such a big issue is they're wiping out the babies so there's no longer a breeding population of moose or elk in major areas of this country, including the lolo elk herd in montana and the moose around the greater yellowstone area in wyoming. it's these baby moose they're after. they surround the mother. two of them distract the mother and the rest of them take the babies. there are not enough breeding females left, so when the older females age out of the population, there are no breeding females to take their place. it is the wildlife that is getting decimated, mr. chairman.

this is a wildlife issue, to save the moose. i strongly encourage the adoption of the this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: i yield such time as the gentleman from oregon requires. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. well, actually i think wolves are part of wildlife and i heard a mention of montana, yellowstone. actually in yellowstone, the rivers were in horrible, horrible condition because all he brows was was being done by elk and critters right down into the streams, fish populations were crashing. the water was too hot. they lost all the pairing and cover and now you find we restored balance because the wolves are there and the elk stay in the forest. they don't go down and stomp around in the streams.

natural balance is sometimes problematic. the gentlelady showed a picture of a moose under attack. fairly natural. and i don't believe that that is the total cause for the problems with the moose population. in fact, those moose are still hunted. so i guess we need to save the moose from the wolves so the hunters can hunt the moose. so, you know, i'm on the side of the wolves on this one, and i think most american people would like to see this iconic predator restore balance. coyotes are three times the predators on cattle. if y want to protect cattle, guess what, wolves kill oyotes, but when you don't have wolves, the coyotes take over. the gentlewoman showed few areas on the map. those aren't gray wolves populations in those areas.

i don't know what sigh beerian wolves look like. when the land bridge went away, they haven't been coming to the united states. and i don't know about chinese wolves. i don't know anything about chinese wolves. but i do know that wolves here are in a fragile state of recovery. and if you hunt them back to extinction, which is what basically is going on in wyoming and you hunt below the levels for sustainable populations, as some of these oer states are doing with trophy hunting and that, then we're going to be back where we started with the wolves being extinguished in the lower 48. more coyotes. yeah, maybe have more moose. maybe the elk can go back in the streams in, you know, in yellowstone. they probably miss thrashing around in there and eating everything, but i think that thismendment to substitute political ience for sound scence and for congress to

preempt litigation with this is somewhat unprecedented, to say the least. with at i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields. the gtleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ribble: i thank you, mr. chairman. i have not mentioned protecting cattle at all. maybe some of my other colleagues will. i have been mentioning trying to protect the endangered species act. i'd like to yield a minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from mhigan, mr. benishek. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. 15 seconds. mr. benishek: i tnk the gentleman from wisconsin for this amendment. i rise today in support of this support to the share act. this amendment directs the u. fish and wildlife service to reissue a rule to delist the gray wolf in wyoming and the great lakes region, which includes my state of michigan. in 2011, the fish and wildlife service determined that the wolves recovered in the great

lakes underederally approved state management plans. i can speak from personal experience about the impact that wolves and their recovery are having on my district. this photo next to me is of a constituent in my district, one of his calves was attacked and eaten by a wolf, which may not mean a lot by the opponents of this. that's just the cattle. as a number of wolves have increased well beyond the recommended number for recovery, we've seen drastic declines in the deer population in northern michigan. . my camp has no deer. the economy of the whole area is in collapse because there's o hunting anymore. i understand some are opposed to ever delisting the wolf. we must consider the impact the wolf has on the landscape as a whole. this amendment does not change the endangered species act. simply allows for the filing of true sound science.

the great wolf has recovered in the great lakes and ready for delisting of state management. i urge my colleagues to support. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin has the only time remaining. mr. ribble: i will go ahead and close then, mr. chairman. about two decades ago there were only 15 gray wolves in the western great lakes states. today the gray wolf population exceeds 3,700. yet we are to act as if some judge someplace decides that that's not enough. that michigan, wisconsin, minnesota, wyoming that these states in and of themselves cannot manage these populations in accordance to the fish and wildlife's actions and with their scientific help. this is not unprecedented as the minority has mentioned. this exactly has happened with montana and idaho before.

mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 15, printed in house report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15, printed in house report number 114-429. offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. chairman, ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. mr. chairman, my amendment is relatively a complicated amendment in the sense that a lot of people don't have any history of the alaska nationalp lands act. my amendment prohibits the director of the fish and wildlife service from from issuing a final ruling that would seize authority from the state of alaska, alaska fish and game. to manage fish and game on all land. that was under -- my amendment also last withdraws existing naps rule that interferes with state wildlife management authority under the national preserve lands of alaska, agreed to by this congress. the alaska national interest land conservation act passed by congress, signed into law in 1980 protects the ability of the state of alaska to manage wildlife across the state on state, private, and federal lands. as alaska's the lone representative and someone who

is initially involved in the process of producing the act, an agreement with my colleagues, it is my conclusion that the proposed rule set forth by the fiffles -- fish and wildlife service and park service is clear violation of federal law. the scope of the proposed fish and wildlife service rule is he enormous. there are 76.8 million acres of wildlife refuges in alaska. amount of land about the size of four michigans. at least two or three virginians. and this is on top of that there is 20 million acres of nation preserves in alaska. million acres in the state of alaska. in that agreement was setaside we were to retain management of fish and game on all lands. that is in the law. very frankly, my colleagues, this is a regulatory overreach by this administration. promoted by this add,. -- administration.

breaking the law. the fish and wildlife service searched their actions are allowed by the national wildlife improvement act, however as the original sponsor of that act, can i knowingly and firmly state that the fish and wildlife service proposal goes beyond the original intent of my legislation passed by this house. the national wildlife refuge system specifically states that the act takes priority over any other congress regarding refuge lands in the state of alaska. i somewhat find it concerninging the fish and wildlife would cite a law that forbids them from taking such actions and saying the justifications because of the law. it is not. this is a special interest preshry group to say that fish and wildlife will take away the state's rights. if you believe in state states' rights, you will take and support this amendment i'm offering. if you believe in the federal government only, not the united states of america, united states federal government, you'll oppose this amendment. i'm asking my colleagues to

think about what's occurring here. the overreach of this federal government that has taken away the rights of states and continuing to try to do t i urge passage of the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. dingell: mr. chairman, with nothing but the deepest of respect for my colleague from alaska, and i even want to tell him i was afraid to stand up without getting clearance from one of your other good friends, the resident hunter in my household, but this amendment is yet another attempt to allow a state to override perfectly reasonable conservation policies on u.s. public lands. this amendment would prevent the park service from managing wildlife on these lands even though they are owned by the american taxpayers, not by the state of alaska. of particular concern is

alaska's policy of eradicating keystone predator species. because of this polcy, allowing wolves and bears to seek refuge on these park service lands may be the only way -- only way to keep them from requiring protection under the endangered species act. i want to be clear about what this rule does and does not do. and it does not deny access to hunting. this rule does not reduce hunting in the national preserves in alaska, period. in fact, it keeps existing hunting rules in place. what the rule does do is ban ome of the most inhumane and echologically damaging forms of hunting. things a true sportsman would never do anyway. let me share examples. this rule would prevent spotlighting black bears and shooting them and their cubs, babies, in their dense.

it would prevent using bait to attract and kill bears. it would prevent killing wolves during their dening season. again, babies. it would prevent the killing of caribou from a motor boat while under power. yes, if a dear is williaming -- deer is swimming and you go after it in a boat, it would prevent that caribou who is swimming from being shot. if you think people should be allowed to do any of these what i think are unsportsmanlike things, this amendment's for you. but if you're like most americans, you will be deeply disturbed by these practices and will join me in opposing this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back for the moment. the chair: does the gentlelady yield back or does she reserve? mrs. dingell: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: may i remind my good

friend in michigan. he voted for my bill. it's the law. under that it was agreement that the state would manage. by the way it's against the law to shoot species of animals from a boat. this doesn't change that. it changes the management concept. and it is overreached by the federal government. it's overreached by this fish and wildlife. they are not fish and wildlife managers anymore. they are becoming the preservationist group without the management ability and state that lives there. i'm not changing anything other than just the fact that the state still has authority under nelka and he voted for t i'm suggesting respectfully if you want the federal government to manage everything, 100 million acres that we agreed we could manage in the law, the state, if you want the government to take that all over, let's just give the government all the land. let's stop having free land. you talk about being public land, the public, the public

that lives there, they want the state to manage the land. so far they have done a great job. as far as shooting bears, that's against the law in the state of alaska. now, why are we saying that? because it's emotionally acceptable. let's stick to the facts. this is the fact you want. the administration, the government to manage all lands. or do you want to follow the law we passed in this congress? the law? we have a tendency heretofore get what happened. this long, look at the history, it was a compromise. a lot of it i objected to. but we pass it in this house. it was accepted by the state but under the standing the state would manage fish and game and not the federal government. by the way, the park service in the state of alaska, the fish and wildlife in the state of alaska are not partners anymore. it's all run from washington,

d.c. i'm out of time? give me another five minutes. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from michigan. mrs. dingell: i have nothing but the utmost respect for my colleague from alaska. and i actually think that he and my spouse share the same sportsmanship policies of hunting. but this rule, it just simplifies and updates procedures for closing an area or restricting an activity. it updates obsolete sub cystence regulation and prohibits very specifically some of these things that i spoke about. i think we respectfully disagree. i yield back the balance of my time. and request a roll call vote. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. t the amendment is agreed to -- ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mrs. dingell: respectfully request a roll call vode. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the vote will be

postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 16, considered in house report 114-429. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16, printed in house report number 114-429, offered by mr. huffman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 619, the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. there are some iconic places in this country that define america. the arctic national wildlife refuge in northeastern alaska is one of those places. it is a one of a kind treasure. today for the first time the full house of representatives has an opportunity to cast a vote to permanently preserving and protect this special lace. my republican friend, mr. fitzpatrick, from pennsylvania, has joined me in introducing the underlying bill that is incorporated in this amendment.

together we are carrying the torch that prior generations of bipartisan leaders have carried. they have understood that america's arctic is a uniquely wild place. it was republican president dwight eisenhower who first established federal protections for the coastal plain in 1960. democratic chairman udall who expanded the refuge doubling its size in 1980. i had the great privilege to visit the arctic refuge last summerer. i camped in the wilderness. i came away with an urgency to permanently protect coastal plain. allowing drilling would irreparably disrupt a very important ecosystem. it would impact the way of life for the people and forever destroy one of our nation's last great wild places. that's why i'm offering this amendment to the share act. to ask that we protect this american wilderness once and for all. my amendment would designate the threatened biological heart

of the refuge, the coastal plain, as wilderness, to finally recognize the intrinsic value of this land and what it holds to ensure that it remains pristine for generations to come. congress has been debating whether to drill in this area for nearly three decades. as our public lands suffer from the effects of climate change, most significantly in alaska i believe time is of the essence. the arctic refuge is wild, it's spectacular, and most important it is owned by all americans not by the oil industry. that's why congressman fitzpatrick and i introduced to bipartisan legislation permanently designate it as wilderness, following the bipartisan legacy this legislation has enjoyed for decades. arctic refuge support has always been diverse and nationwide. during the recent public comment period for the draft conservation plan, the fish and wildlife service received nearly one million comments in support of wilderness for the arctic refuge, and in

opposition to oil and gas exploration and development. alaskans showed overwhelming support at public hearings and sent thousands of comments, including from 100 businesses across the state. this legislation has been introduced in every congress for almost three decades and has never come to a vote, full vote on the house floor. . i'm grateful in january, the department of interior released a conservation plan that recommended protection, a recommendation that was transmitted to congress, but only congress can act to designate the coastal plain as wilderness and now is the time to seize that opportunity. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: you know, i admire my friend from california who doesn't know squat about the arctic wildlife range.

that's the truth. you may have camped out in it but not in the area that we would like to drill oil that we set aside and we did pass opening anwar and it got stopped in the senate. and bill clinton, vetoed it. we have 18 billion barrels of oil, that's a minimum estimate, 74 miles away from an existing pipeline on the coastal plain. you say, well, we don't need the oil now. i heard that in 1960. we didn't need the oil but it went up to $450, gasoline at the pump. this is a reserve set aside by scoop jackson, a democrat, myself and ted stevens so it would be there for development when congress acted. to put this in a wilderness area

on behalf of a group of people that don't understand that and you say alaska supports your amendment? don't applaud. don't keep that in mind, but i have been running longer than anybody in this house and alaska does support this provision and federal oil and not our oil. we have an infrastructure in place right now that can be used to move that oil if and when it's needed. and i'm glad the gentleman said only the congress can designate this, because your fish and wildlife recommended it all be wilderness, another act of this administration. and i happen to agree very frankly that the congress will vote someday when and where and you want to get rid of me, take a vote for it, to open it up and i might retire. but until that time, i'm staying

here. i yield to mr. mcclintock -- i know that. about 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this amendment would forbid development in one of the untapped fields of oil. how is american energy independence by developing the vast energy resources? we are talking about reserves that are larger than the reserves in the entire nation of mexico or norway from which we currently depend on importing oil. and the gentleman from california is right that that land is owned by the american people, so is the oil under it $300 t means about 3 -- billion, that's $2,00 for every

family in this country. the proposed development of the arctic oil requires 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres. that is 1/100 of 1% of that area. that is how extreme. it would sacrifice american prosperity and oil reserves than in all of mexico. it would sacrifice revenues to the treasury $2,400 for every family to place offlimits a rozen part of the arctic tundra. look to measures at the amendment before us to see why our country is going bankrupt. i yield back. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. chairman, with respect to the senior legislator from alaska, i have no doubt that he knows and understands the coastal plain and that area far better than i

do and anyone else in this body does. but i do know this, every member of this body, in fact every american has a stake in protecting the coastal plain of the arctic wilderness, migratory birds go to all 49 of the other states. we are connected whether we know it or not with this critically vital ecosystem in the alaska wildlife refuge. and the whole point of wilderness is to protect areas that we actually may never camp out in, that we may never see, but are nevertheless, of such great intrinsic value that they deserve this special protection. that is what this is all about. the argument that we need oil extraction and development in the arctic, i would point out, right next door to the arctic refuge is an equal-sized area that we set aside.

called the national petroleum reserve and the oil industry has not seen fit to develop in that area, nor does it look like they will any time soon with oil hovering around $30 a barrel and this week the saudis may be taking it down to $20 a barrel. because of its overdependence, oil revenues are down by half, the permanent fund is hemorrhaging. the tourist economy which is built around preserving and protecting natural resources is growing and will eclipse oil revenues -- let's look to the future. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i always listen to these arguments written by the sierra club who would like to take this nation to its knees, which is reality. we talk about the petroleum reserves, it was a reserve set aside for use by this nation.

and they are drilling. they are drilling today. conoco phillips is going on. the sails put up by this administration is not where they wanted to drill. i have an old saying and people laugh at me, you don't hang rabbits on a pool table just because it's green. you don't drill oil if it's not there. and this administration, bless their hearts, they put up sails that there was nothing there like the pool table. they can't and will not. the choices and i ask them, why don't you ask the oil companies where you would like to drill. we can't do that, because someone has asked us to preserve that great area. the area is just as pretty but it doesn't have any oil. this is an attempt to take 18 billion barrels of oil away from the american people, an attempt

by special interest groups so this country can't grow. able will be here forever. oppose this amendment. it's wrong for this nation. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the knows have it. the gentleman have -- from california. mr. huffman: i request a recorded vote. the chair: now in order to consider amendment number 17. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lowenthal: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment to be offered? the clerk: amendment number 17 rinted in house report 114-429 ffered by mr. lowenthal.

the chair: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: i yield myself such time as i may consume. my amendment is very simple straight sford. allow the federal duck stamp to be changed by the rate of inflation. something that each and every one of us can't avoid. decreases the dollar over time, it also decreased -- decreases the real value of a duck stamp. the duck stamp is a highly effective conservation program. the revenue from the federal duck stamp that all hunters must buy to hunt water fowl is used to preserve wetlands and maintain a sustainable population for hunters and bird

watchers. the preservation of wetland habitat from the duck stamp in conjunction with the national wildlife refuge system has reversed and i indicate reverse the decline in the water fowl populations across this country and also not insignificant is that these wetlands buffer our communities from flooding saving billions of dollars in damage and recharge aquifers that are vital to our groundwater supplies. the duck stamp works. 98 cents of every dollar spent on a duck stamp goes back to preserving wildlife habitat. to date, more than $800 million have been spent on the preservation of over six million acres of habitat. the duck stamp is a true user's

fee where all the funds are spent to benefit the fee payer. i hope this is an amendment that the chairman can support as a commonsense update to address the reality of inflation that will erode the ability of the duck stamp and the national wildlife refuge system to continue this highly successful conservation program. thank you and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wittman: i rise time to claim opposition. i agree with the the gentleman from california that the duck stamp program is a great program and does a tremendous amount of good. the wetlands are preserved with that and it's a great opportunity for the communities to come together. last year, the duck stamp fee was increased for the first time in 24 years.

i myself am a duck hunter and i buy multiple stamps every year. it will yield $1919 million over 10 years, but we know when you put those increases and fees in the first year, the revenue drops because people that would buy them without the need, don't do that. and then they come back to actually purchasing that. we understand that. and we have asked the wildlife service to look at how the implementation of this fee is going to play, how the costs associated with the program are to best manage this as you said to get the most dollars to wetlands conservation. with the idea of now going to an inflationary factor right on the heels of a $10 without getting from the fish and wildlife what the impacts are going to do, i think is premature. and i serve on the conservation

commission and i believe that the responsibility for any type of increases should be on the backs of all members of congress not just the four on the migratory conservation commission. i applaud the duck stamp program. but i would argue that this inflationary increase measure is premature especially in the face of an increase, $10 increase last year and with that, i would oppose this amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. lowenthal: this is such a wittman has- as mr. pointed out such a highly successful program. the word that you said it's

premature, not that you really oppose protecting the ability to protect our water fowl populations and make sure that duck hunters have ducks to hunt. we agree upon that. the one issue is just to make clear that we aren't talking about automatically increasing inflation. all we're saying is when inflation does come which will erode this program, that there is a process in place that the secretary of the interior will make a recommendation to the migratory bird conservation commission. that commission has to support it. at most, it would have been a 35-cent increase. i hear what you are saying about that. and if you will work with me as we go forward to see when is the best time that we can work on this, i will ask to withdraw this amendment. can i get a commitment that

we'll work together? mr. wittman: i ask the gentleman to yield. yes. i will tell the gentleman from california, we will work with you in looking at the future of the duck stamp program making sure it is managed in the proper way and getting dollars where they need to go. mr. lowenthal: right. i thank you. and with that, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection. amendment offered by gentleman is withdrawn. proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 111-429. amendment number 2, amendment number 3, amendment number 8, amendment number 9, amendment number 12, by mr. griffith of virginia, amendment number 14, amendment number 15 and amendment number 16 by mr. huffman of california. the chair will reduce to two

minutes the amendment time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. e fun unfinished business is amendment number 2 on which the knows prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-429. offered by mr. beyer of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the nays are, the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 3, printed in house report 114-429 on which further proceedings were postponed and the knows prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: recorded votes are requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. the chair will enforce the two-minute rule. 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: the yeas are 1959 and the nays are 244. the amendment is not adopted of. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will rezregget the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 114-429 offered by mr. beyer of virginia. the chair: those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, 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: the yeas are 169 and the nizz are 236. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 by the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the yeas prevailed. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report number 114-429 offered by mr. smith of missouri. the chair: recorded vote is requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

chair umpire: on this vote the yeas are 232, the nays are 173, the amendment is adopt the unfinished business is the request for a vote on amendment number 12 by the gentleman, mr. griffith, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number printed in house report 114-429, offered by mr. griffith of virginiaful chair umpire: recorded vote is requested. those favoring 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 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 269, the nays are 165. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the vote on the amendment by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, -- mr. ribble. the clerk: amendment number 14, offered by mr. ribble of wiscsin.

the chair: a recorded vote is 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. mbers will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the natiol captioning institute, inc., in cooperationith the united states house of presentatives. any use of the closed-captione coverage of the house proceedings r political or commercial purposes is express prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 2324erk nays are 171, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a rored vote on amendment number 15 printed in house report 114-429 by the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 114-429 oured by mr. young of alaska. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those faring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote ised or empled members will record their votes by electronic device. s that 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 236, the nays are 169. the unfinished intizz the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 16 printed in house remedical report 114-429, by the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 offered by mr. huffman of california. the chair: a vord -- a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote

will rise. a recorded vote -- is off 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 vose, the yeas are 176, the nays are 227. he amendment is not adopted.

the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule, the committee rises. the committee on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2406 and pursuant to house resolution 619, i report the bill back to the house with 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

has had under consideration h.r. 2406 and reports the bill back to the house. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate amendment offered? if not the question is adoption of the committee amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is goode to. question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the clerk: a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for hunting, fishing and shooting and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. would members clear the well. clear the aisles and take your conversations from the floor,

lease. for what purpose does gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the bill? >> i'm opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady qualifies. the clerk: mrs. lawrence of michigan moves to recommit the bill to the committee on natural resources with instructions to report the same back to the house with the following amendment. at the end of the bill -- mrs. lawrence: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: are there any objections? without objection, the reading is dispensed with.

he house will be in order. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lawrence: my amendment will ensure our public water systems and waterways used for public recreation are protected from an estimated 4,000 tons of lead, which are contaminating our ponds, strea from lost fishing tackle. my amendment will ensure that all manufacturers of products containing any type of substance with the potential to contaminate water systems provide to the federal and state agencies to research the risks to human health and the environment. members of congress, the manmade water crisis in flint has showed us the devastating effects of

contaminating our water sources. he 100,000 residents of flint, i repeat, the 100,000 residents of flint lost a basic human right, access to clean water. according to the american society of civil engineers, our drinking water infrastructure c, d , that's a, b, grade. according to the american society of civil engineers, 126 billion will be needed for water and waste water infrastructure over the next four years. and that leaves a funding gap of $84 billion. it's significant to note that the american public overwhelmingly supports investment in our nation's water

infrastructure, as drinking water is not a luxury, but a basic need for life. a poll released just a week by the value water coalition showed 95% of americans, and that means on both sides of the aisle, believe it is important to invest in water infrastructure. today, i say and i regret to say that we in congress have kicked the can down the road year after year when it comes to investing in our infrastructure. but i know that mayors and governors and members of this congress have sounded the warning sign over and over again about the possibility of a disaster. mr. speaker, will you please have the house in order.

mayors, governors and some members of congress have sounded the warning over and over again of an impending disaster, but we never imagid it would come in the mass poisoning of an enti ity. the speaker pro tempore: the chair requests that the house come to order. the gentlelady may continue. mrs. lawrence: mayors, governors and some members of congress have sounded the warning bell over and over again about the possibility of the lack of investment of an impeding disaster, but we never imagined it would come in the mass poisoning of an entire american city. the children of flint, the parents, the citizens of these united states need,eed congress, not one side ofhe aisle or the other, we need

congress to act so we don't see another generion of children potentially suffering from the negative effects of lead poisoning. i urge all members of this united states congress, the 114th session of congress, to support this motion to recommit. h.r. 2406. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wittman: i rise in opposition to the motio recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: the minority's motion to rcommit is an issue about chemicals in drinking water, chemicals in drinking water is an issue that's addressed in the toxic substances control act which is beforehis house. there were multiple opportunities to determine how to address that issue. that bill has passed out of the house.

that was the opportunity. this bill, the share act, is a package of commonsense bills that will increase opportunities for hunters, recreational shooters and andlers a elimite impedements and safeguard rulations that im pedments that and does not pertain to chemicals in drinking water. hunting, fishing and recreational shooting are engrained in the fabric of america's culture and heritage, values by par taking in these activities are passed down from generation to generation and play significant part in the lives of millions of americans. this important legislation will sustain the rich hunting and fishing traditions and improve access to our public lands and help to ensure thatheurrent and future generations of sports

men and women are able to he enjoy sporting activities this country holds ar. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this important leslation and defeat the motion to recommit. iield my time back. the speaker po tempore: 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. mrs. lawrence i call for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: e yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote will rise. a suffient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. pursuant to clause , rule 20, this five-minute motion to recommit. this is a five-minute vote. [captiing made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united stes 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 e yeas are 165, the nays are 238. the motion is not adopt thsmed equestion is on passage of the bill. thosin favor say aye. those opposed, no the ayes have it this egentleman from virginia. >> i request a recorded vo. the speaker o tempore: a recorded vote is requested. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. th is a five-minute vote. [captioninmade possiblby the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states hoe of representatives. any use of t closed-caioned coverage of the use

preedings for politicaor commercial purposes is eressly ohibited by thu.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yea are 2, thays are 161. the bills passed. thout objecon theotn to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i as unanimous consent that in t engrossmt of h.r. 2406, the crk be ahorized to correct section number, puio cross referces and make suthechnical and conforminghanges as may be the actis of the house. flect thspeaker ro temre: wiout ction, so ord.

for what purpose does the gentleman rom georgia seek >> i asnanimo csent speak outf order for one minute for te purpos of making an announcement. the speaker pro tpore: without obction the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: the re commtees 3716o ensure providers are remove from medicaid and chip blocking r. 4557, the interference. the amendment deadline from h.r. 3716 has been set to monday, february 29 at noon and the amendment deadline for h.r. 4547 has been set for 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, march 1. for details and texts of the bills, folks can vill the rule committees website and feel free to contact the rules committee with any questions members may have. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek

recognition? mr. woodall: i also seek unanimous consent to -- that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday eric february 29, 2016, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and at 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. 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 north carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to address one of the nation's greatest concerns, welfare reform. america's most important resource is our people. the last thing we want of any of our citizens to believe is that they are forever stuck in a situation that they cannot rise

above. welfare reform was originally successful because it required work in return for assistance, gave more power and responsibility to the states in fighting poverty and ensured that states were rewarded for reducing poverty instead of increasing dependency. today, given the slow growth of our economy, many job seekers become frustrated when they're unable to find adequate work this creates a system where many become trapped and dependent on state and federal assistance. solutions to welfare reform have to come at a local level not from washington and it is imperative that we encourage family values and education more than anything. washington's primary role is to strengthen the economy, facilitate growth and encourage a positive business climate, thus creating jobs and reducing dependency on state programs. thank you, madam speaker and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much, madam speaker. today congress voted to make it easier to import killed polar bears and ivory into our nation. the share act most closely resembles george orwell's novel "1984," riddled with double speak and other provisions. it would encourage the further hunting and importation of polar bears as long as they follow the rules this african elephant legacy ivory possession act would encourage the needless and malicious and indecent slaying of animals for their tusks and for what? so gun owners can have a shiny ip on their smith & wesson

.357 magnum made from a tusk that was once part of a beautiful, ma jest eckel fant. mr. cardenas: have we come to the place in our history where the ayery trim ogen a gun is more important than a life? i urge the senate and the president to reject this ethically and morally repugnant bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to recognize the vale unified school district for their outstanding educational achievements. year after year, the arizona department of education recognizes them as a top performing school district and its schools are continuously labeled a-plus. as with any organization, leadership matters. va lmbing e sutcht cal baker set acetone from the top of

innovation and excellence but he's not alone. he has many wingmen and wingwomen, including an engaged school board, dedicated staff and teachers and patients and selfless poll vol tiers who work together to provide high quality education to kids. vale's out of the box learning del doesn't just benefit its students but the whole state when it's exported to other schools. it was my honor to participate in vale friday. i gave out awards to members of the vale parent network for their work in education. i congratulate the district on their achievements and their impact on so many kids by setting them on a course tory achief their dreams. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: frurm does -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute.

>> thank you, madam speaker, i rise to recognize the talent of the south plains high school team. mrs. watson coleman: this year's team includes eric, angela and tanish and they were coached by miss sharm. in a few weeks they'll head to washington, d.c. to compete in the department of energy's national science bowl and i am proud to know that the -- that new jersey's 12th district will be represent. i wish the coach and team the best of luck in the national competition and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today

in recognition and in celebration of black history month. this month is a reminder of both the incredible sacrifices and the remarkable contributions that african-americans have made during our nation's history. 153 years ago, illinois' own abraham lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. for 153 years since then, our nation has struggled to overcome big triand achieve equality for all. mr. dold: countless courageous lead verse taken up the cause of justice, including former illinois senator dirksen and our colleague here in the united states congress, john lewis. walking on the edmund pettus bridge in selma with congressman lewis for the 50th anniversary of the selma to montgomery marches is one of my highlights of my tenure in the united states congress. as we look back on the accomplishments of the past, we cannot lose sight of the urgency with which we must address inequality in our society today. african-americans today face an

unacceptable likelihood of being incarcerated a poverty rate that our nation's leaders should be achamed of -- ashamed of an everyday discrimination that flies in the face of everything our nation stands for. in memory of the heros who fought for equality throughout our nation's history, we are compelled to act. i'm committed to fighting for a more just and equal society. i implore my colleagues to do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? weather -- without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: i rise today to honor the life and memory of late state senator debey smith. debey was a fighter and a powerful advocate for improving nevada's public schools. her work through the p.t.a. and legislative leader, she served the community in countless ways,

constantly advocating for nevada to invest in what matters most, our children. after having a brain tumor removed last year, she returned to the legislature to work on the front lines for major education reform. cancer couldn't stop her from making her vision came to fruition and she was able to claim a victory that will benefit nevada's staunds. she was a true friend and was a hero. the angels are fortunate to now have her on their side. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the ouse for one minute. without objection. mr. rohrabacher: i rise today to note the passing of an american hero, alfred mann, at 17 years

of age, he was a navigator on a b-29. after the war he was educated with a g.i. bill and used his creative skills to upgrade america's anti-tank weapons of the day, but short time after that, he said he was so happy because he had his chance to use to build things. he revolutionized heart pacers at that time and helped millions of americans live better through his technology that helped diabetes etics, people who are deaf. he represented the very best in america and he was a hero. he passed away at 91 years of age, he will be missed but has left a wonderful legacy and we live better and fiscal year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. ms. wasserman schultz: the supreme court is hear a case challenging the texas law that has deprived women of their constitutional right to make our own health care decisions. i joined 163 colleagues. texas is home to 5.4 million of reproductive age and this law would leave 10 clinics opened in the entire state, in texas. as a mother of two daughters, i find it unacceptable and it is an outrage of mostly male politicians interfere in women's health decisions. we are seeing an unprecedented attack on women's health and i will not be silent about it. these laws have not and will not make women safer and these laws

are intrusive. it is my hope that the supreme court overturns this offensive law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, we are less than five days away from hearing oral arguments in a supreme court case that could steal the right away from women to make their own health care decisions. the legislature passed house bill 2, a very strict anti-abortion law that imposed restrictions on women's health care providers. lawmakers claim their motivation was to protect women's health care, but texas women can attest the law has done little to expand their access to health care. over 20 clinics have shut down. women in dallas are facing 20

days for an initial abortion consultation. other states have followed the lead with 22 states passing similar laws targeting abortion providers just in the last few years. roe versus wade made it clear that women have a constitutional right to make choices about their own bodies. planned parenthood versus casey reafffirmed a state cannot create an undue burden on women when they have the right to exercise their right to an abortion. a constitutional right means nothing without the ability to exercise that right. i'm confident that the supreme court will refirm that women have the right to make their own health care decisions. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 238, an act to amend title 18 united states

code to authorize the director of the bureau of prisons to issue pepper spray to officers and employees to the bureau of prisons. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, such time as he may consume. mr. flores: i thank the gentleman from texas. madam speaker, i rise today to honor u.s. marine corps major sean m. campbell of college station, texas. major campbell died on january 24, 2016 when he was involved in a helicopter training accident in hawaii. he attended kline high school in houston and graduated from texas

a&m. he decided to follow his lifelong dream of becoming a pilot. he accepted his commission and began a career as a marine corps aviator. he served four tours in the middle east and one in iraq. after serving our country overseas, he returned to the u.s. where he became a flying instructor at the naval air station located in pensacola, florida. they were later transferred to marine corps air station in hawaii in 2014. during his time stationed at the marine corps base, he served as a super stallion pilot, marine aircraft group 24. throughout his tenure, he garnered numerous awards and decorations. they include, the air medal with

strike flight device, the navy and marine corps congressmen dation medal, the navy unit commendation. the national defense service medal, iraq campaign medal, the global war on terrorism service medal and sea service ribbon. madam speaker. major campbell was a fearless leader and decorated veteran. his devotion to protect our country will be forever remembered. our thoughts and prayers are with the family of major sean campbell and will be remembered as an outstanding husband, father and marine. we thank him and his family for their service and sacrifice to our country. it reflects the words of jesus, greater love hath than one who has laid down his life for his friends. this serves as a reminder of the sacrifices of the men and women to preserve freedom for this

great nation. we will forever in debt to these great individuals who serve our country. i ask all americans to continue to pray for our country during these difficult times, for our military men and women who protect us from external threats and our first responders who protect us from threats here at home. i yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: thank the gentleman from texas. toth i were at texas a&m in the corps cadets. and he didn't have to look down to read what john 15. . 13. that was a question that tudents had to memoirize, what

is the insubscription on the student system and the correct answer -- the insubscription on the memorial student center at texas a&m greater love hath that a man lay down his life for his friends. it's also touching to me each time i come to the southern entrance, the main entrance visitor coming into the capitol, visitors come through that entrance immediately passing through the metal detectors up on the right is a statue of a catholic priest named father damien. the statue is strange in the way

it is squared off but nothing strange about the way he lived. and hawaii picked one of the two allowable staws it has, father damien to be represented and i guess most noble, it indicates, when k, 50 years-plus ago hawaii came into the union, at that time, our nation was still a christian nation. our motto still above the speaker's head here, in god we trust, was front and center most everywhere. and so it shouldn't have been a surprise that hawaii wanted to y tribute for one of its two tatues, a man who learned of lepers being sometimes just

thrown a passing ship. sometimes they would dock and let them go to shore, but it was nothing but squallor back in was days and leprocy contagious, but in the words of the poet, the inhumanity to man. but it was an island full of lepers that knew they were going to die as their skin and parts rotted off. father damien heard about the situation went to the island knowing by going to that island, he would indeed get the disease and prayed it would be later than sooner, so he could administer to all those hurting on the island. but he helped them set up a way

of life. and instead of just having hopeless nonsocietal squallor to ive in, he help them build a way of life, a sense of norm atlanta, a way in which they could finish out their way with some element of peace. and as a result, i believe it was around 15 years or so before he got the disease and eventually took him, but on the plaque of father damien's statue, one of the first you see when you come in the southern entrance. the words inscribed, gratter love than a man lay down his life for his friends and that's what father damien and certainly laid llow aggie when he

down his life for his country. with that background, we ought to approach most every issue that this federal government faces. we have an obligation to those who have gone before us and have laid down what lincoln called the last full measure of devotion. given their lives that we might have a better life. and how tragic it is that political correctness has so infiltrated and overwhelmed the united states of america that college, when you study history, the colleges are often described as the intelligence yeah, the people that are well educated, that figure things out, that are

open-minded, where they used to be the most open-minded. texas a&m when i attended was if not the most conservative, one of the most conservative colleges and universities in america and i was proud to be there. proud to be in the corps cadets, proud to have an army scholarship that committed me to four years in the united states army after i graduated and looked forward to serving my country. and as conservative as we were, we were not afraid of inviting very liberal speakers. and we were not afraid of having debate with them, very civilized debate. i recall helping out, ushering ralph nader around when he came to texas a&m. one of my friends was his host.

that was no big deal. it was really an opportunity for a conservative like me and others to have a dialogue with ralph nader. it sometimes shocks people that a conservative like me can have some very liberal friends. just like the great antonin scalia was very close friends with ruth bader ginsburg. totally different views. he believed in upholding the letter of the law of the constitution and she didn't. but they were friends. so you can have that friendship , but it is an embarrassment, should be an embarrassment to is nation that so many who proclaimed in the 1960's and 1970's to be the most up -minded among us ended

becoming professors at colleges . began to teach the teachers. and those teachers in turn went back and taught elementary and middle school and high school. and somehow over the last 50 years we've gone from a nation that recognizes that true conservatism is confident enough in itself that it's not afraid to have debate and dialogue and hear from all types of viewpoints. tragically, as our universities, the intelligencia in america, have become more and more established in the universities, universities have allowed these open-minded, these broad-minded liberals to have places of prominence in our institutions of higher learning and somehow now they

have become the most close-minded people in america. they don't want to hear from conservatives. they are embarrassed to have a come speak. it's rather tragic. because no longer are our universities, generally speaking, places where all types of thought are analyzed. they're not taught all types of thought. they're given a very narrow version and it's usually very critical of anyone who has a conservative. anyone who believes the constitution -- who is a conservative. anyone who believes that the constitution should mean what it says. anyone who stands up for the judeo-christian principles on which this nation was founded. and one of the great things about being founded on jew day o'christian principles -- on

judeo-christian principles has been that if true christian principles are applied to government, then anyone of any religion is free to practice that religion or not practice that religion, unless the religion is actually a religion politics that dictates that their believers cannot follow the letter of the law within the united states constitution. and from this podium i have spoken many times about the holy land foundation trial in the united states district court, in the northern district of texas. was the largest prosecution regarding terrorism in our nation's history. the holy land foundation was

founded -- was found to be a front organization for radical islamists who were funneling money. some, i mean, they called themselves charity, some would be funneled to charities. some would be for the children. but they also funneled money to terrorist organizations that were used to terrorize people here an abroad. the bush administration justice department, since president george w. bush did not have a heavy thumb on the scales of justice and allowed the justice department to pursue any crime that they saw, any threat to america, unlike the present day, they went after the holy land foundation. they had evidence to show that the holy land foundation and many organizations and many leading people claiming the muslim faith were actually tied

together, they were co-conspirators in funneling money to charities, for sure, but also to terrorist organizations. and as i understand, from former friends at the justice department, or former members of the justice department who strategy friends, the s to get convictions in that first massive prosecution, i think there were over 100 counts of supporting terrorism, get convictions there and in the same case, having named many co-conspirators who were not actually indicted, if they could get those convictions, as they knew the evidence indicated they should, then they coup go after -- then they would go after the named co-conspirators who were unindicted at that point, but

go ahead and indict them and get prosecution and conviction of co-conspirators. well, there were some names of groups and individuals in that prosecution named as co-conspirators, supporting terrorism. who were offended. perhaps they were more concerned with their public image of being charitable when actually they were being exposed through this prosecution for the evidence that existed that they were co-conspirators in supporting terrorist groups and terrorist acts. but they filed a motion to have their name struck as co-conspirators in supporting terrorism. one such group was care.

the council of american islamic relations. people like imam ijid who has been president of the islamic society of north america, who was also named as a co-conspirator. anyway. they filed motions to have their name stricken as co-conspirators. there was a hearing, evidence produced, and the united states district judge ruled in the case that there was plenty of evidence to support that those individuals named were indeed co-conspirators to fund terrorism. well, not happy with that, they appealed to the fifth circuit court of appeals. said, gee, we should have our name struck as being

co-conspirators in supporting terrorism. nd i've even read from the opinion of the united states fifth circuit court of appeals that ruled, not only is there evidence that these individuals like care, islamic society of north america, not only is there evidence, but there is actually substantial evidence that they have been co-conspirators in funding and supporting terrorism. well, i believe it was november of 2008, right after senator barack obama was elected president, that the convicts were obtained -- convictions were obtained on over 100 counts. and before the conviction could become completely final, there was a new administration coming in.

we had a new attorney general coming in. and the new president and the new attorney general, eric holder, had a different agenda. they were not going to -- cute radical islamists islamist supporters, people that funded radical islam and their terrorist activities, they were no -- there would no longer be those prosecutions. so they were dropped. they were dropped. none of those who were listed as co-conspirators were going obama rosecuted by the justice department. or perhaps a better way of ying it is, the obama-holder just-us department. because they didn't prosecute.

and as the fifth circuit court of appeals indicated, there was plenty of evidence to support that they were co-conspirators. but if that were the end of the story, that would be bad enough. ut instead of not prosecuting, this administration made the council on american islamic relations, care, one of the most influential organizations with a voice inside the white house. if they objected to anything, then the white house immediately flew into action and did whatever care, this named co-conspirator of radical islam, of terror, did whatever care indicated by phone or otherwise in person, whatever they indicated was offensive to them, as named co-conspirators

in supporting terrorism, whatever offended them, this administration made sure was blighted out, covered up, stopped. whether it was a seminar, conference, being given at langley, our intelligence facility, a two-day conference on -- for law enforcement, on radical islam, that was going to be led by people who had spent their adult lives studying radical islam and who knew the dangers and would warn of the dangers, care finds out they call the white house, from what we understand. that is what led the white house to call langley, cancel the conference on radical islam for law enforcement, and come

out with new directives. in effect it seemed like they were saying, unless care approves of somebody, this co-conspirator to support terrorism, unless this co-conspirator that supports terrorism agrees to any comment about islam, you can't make it, you can't have it in training materials. and so then began a partnership some of what werelogical alinged to be supporters -- some of what were alleged to be supporters of radical islamic terrorism, and the f.b.i., actually some of that began during the bush administration, but they had this partnership. and with many of the named co-conspirators supporting radical islamic terrorism, they are still partners with the

president, with this administration. one such co-conspirator, and when i say co-conspirator, i'm referring to as named in the eadings, in the prosecution, in federal court, that were ruled on in the district court, ruled on by the court of appeals, and said, yeah, there's plenty of evidence to support that they have supported radical islamic terrorism. so, those co-conspirators had been a great help to this administration. in advising them of things that offended them as apparently co-conspirators to support radical islamic terrorism. so, some years back, when we found out the f.b.i. training materials had been completely purged of any information that

care found objectionable, we wanted to see those documents. well, we were told that they had been classified, the documents, the training materials that were cut from what f.b.i. trainees could see, they classified them because they didn't want the country to know howry dick louis some of the things -- howry dick louis some of the things that were -- how ridiculous some of the things that were removed from the training material were when trying to train people on what radical islam was. . because it's classified, i can't say specifically what training materials were removed, but i can make the global statement that to me if an f.b.i. student, a student training to be an f.b.i. agent

is needing to learn about the most radical enemy of the united states, that has been, as some of my muslim friends in the middle east and north africa said, they have been at war with you since 1979. and you're still helping them. we don't get it. well, this administration not only helps those co-conspirators, they listen and they're sensitive to anything that co-conspirators supporting terrorism find to be troublesome. but to me if you have, say, a verse from the koran, what they all the holy koran, and you're showing f.b.i. agents scripture at a radical islamic terrorist holds as gospel and

that the percentage of muslims who have taken this radical lamic path, utilized to help radicalize themselves and others, that would be something .n f.b.i. agent should know but unfortunately, since care be objects to f.b.i. trainees knowing versus from the koran that have helped radicalize muslims into becoming radical islamic terrorists, makes it tough to be a well-informed f.b.i. agent. and even if you're in the f.b.i. and you happen to know some of those scriptures, even though they've been blighted ut, hypothetically speaking, from training materials, you know you got to keep your mouth

shut because anybody in the f.b.i., justice department, c.i.a., any of our intelligence agencies that makes the political or occupational mistake in this administration of pointing out some truth about radical islamic terrorism, their career will be over. and as my friend, and i can now call his name since he has tired after he knew so much, tried to warn so many about radical islam, about groups within radical islam, including the ones that conducted the terrorism, murders in california, he tried to warn, provided information but since his information was offensive to radical islamic terrorists, then he had to be purged from

homeland security. a man that helped start homeland security, had been with them from the beginning, who had won a claim and note right within homeland security within homeland security, hundreds of people with terrorist ties, he became a problem, and i tried to work with him for a number of years. we couldn't get enough assistance -- no assistance from the administration. we knew they would come after him, so we were privately trying to help this would-be whistleblower go through proper channels, and when homeland security and congress recommended he go file an i.g. complaint -- i knew it was a mistake. we should have taken actions ourselves, but he filed the

i.g. complaint and the i.g. -- i.g.'s office and homeland security had already been condemned forality irg an i.g. -- for altering an i.g. trying to protect the administration and they were going to do an investigation on thousands of pages of records that linked some people that advised this administration with terrorists and terrorist organizations. they deleted those thousands of pages. knew that if he filed an i.g. complaint they would come after him, because the evidence was so damning for this administration that they would do what they always do. you don't go after the people that are conspiring to harm america. you go after the whistleblower who has blown the whistle on your calousness towards those who would hurt america and they

did. even having a grand jury impaneled to just harass and destroy their personal lives, him and his wife. this man is a patriot. phil haney. he's a patriot. he should be getting all kinds of awards, not just one letter commending him finding all these terrorist ties, but instead they go after him. and the grand jury, after they've probed everything, couldn't come up with everything so they put him in basically a closet, gave him no responsibility, in essence, forcing him to go ahead and etire, which he has. this is no way to treat one of the most wonderful and intelligent patriots i ever met. his wife ended up in the

hospital during all that harassment by homeland security and justice department but that's what this administration does. if you're a co-conspirator, according to the courts, then we want you as an advisor to this administration, and if you're going to blow the whistle, say, potential terrorists of the boston massacre at the marathon or the california terrorism that could have been prevented, had they properly followed up on the warnings by phil haney, you go after the heroes. you go after the patriots and allow the supporters, according to the courts, of radical islamic terrorism to be your advisors. so with that background, madam speaker, i see this article today.

it was published on 25, bright bart, , by they scrub anti-radicalization ok. after care complains so care, this named co-conspirator, naming radical islam that the courts said absolutely there's plenty of evidence to sport that, not only does this administration not prosecute them, they have a wonderful office right down the street. in fact, i saw some of them at a hearing this week that chairman goodlatte called in judiciary. it was an excellent hearing exploring the naming of the muslim brotherhood as a terrorist activity. so the muslim brotherhood,

care, i mean, you know, put two peas in a pod so of course care is going to be there at the hearing and they were. one of them was kind enough to wave at me. nice to be reblingd. -- nice to be recognized. so the article says earlier this month the f.b.i. launched, don't be a puppet, a browser-based video game designed to counterrecruitment propaganda from violent extremists. we call them violent extremists because this administration will not call them radical islamic terrorists that they are. our muslim leader friends in the middle east and in north africa, not in our public meetings, but in the private meetings, are appalled that this administration won't call it what it is. because it makes it difficult for peace-loving muslims to say, this is a part of islam, we need -- this is a part of islam we need help stamping

out. they can't say that when this administration is actually saying it's not part of islam. so people can be comforted. the named co-conspirator, support radical islamic terrorism, objected to radical islam being mentioned in this game to try to stop radical islamists converters or people being converted. and so the f.b.i. has now removed and replaced references to islam and islamic terrorism on the site. the f.b.i. originally intended to launch the site in november, but progress was stalled by care's complaints. at the time, the islamic lobby complained that the website, which is targeted at young people at risk of extremist recruitment -- that's code for radical islamic recruitment -- would lead to the, quote, stigma take -- unquote and, quote, bullying, unquote, of

young muslims. care also contended that the website should instead focus on right-wing extremists, which they argued were a greater threat to american youth. nd paraphernalia theycally nserting -- and paranthe tically inserting, oh, yeah, they tried to blow up a plane, the christmas day bomber, oh, yeah, they were behind the bombing of americans at the -- at the boston marathon. oh, yeah, they killed all those people at san bernardino and oh, yeah, our f.b.i. director says there are islamic state cells and investigations in every state in the union but since this co-conspirator to support radical islam is

objecting to use the term islam or radical islam, we can't refer to that so we have to start talking about right-wing radicals. this clinton-esque, right-wing conspiracy that we later found out actually was not a right-wing conspiracy at all. it was a relationship between a president and an intern. and you can be sure your sins will find you out from the stains it leaves. but the article goes on, the game includes a scenario where players are invited to go on and, quote, overseas mission, unquote, but the character's arabic name has been replaced th a western-sounding one, shawn s. oh, my dear friend sean

hasity's name was sean. it's nice to put the s. so they hannity, hink of sean the most popular sean in america, but how ironic that the radical game is using the name sean. how lovely. anyway, no longer radical islamic make but the article says the f.b.i. appears to have heeded care's advice to focus on right-wing extremists with a new example featuring a, quote, white supremacist rally, unquote, where players are told to commit violent acts in the name of white supremacy. according to the i.j. review, quote, the new version of the game does not mention islam, muslims or any particulars of islamic ideology or targets at all aside from the usual disclaimers that isis does not represent mainstream islam, unquote. while the f.b.i. avoids

mentioning the terrorist group at care's behest, the islamic state remains among the largest terrorist hubs in the world. with recent estimates from the u.s. intelligence community, putting its number of foreign recruits at approximately 30,000. still, you will never know the f.b.i. may be right to shift focus, maybe animal rights activists are planning to set up their own terrorist state too. i hadn't thought about that. maybe animal rights activists are out there planning some massive international caliphate , starting in syria and libya and, boy, do they want egypt back. that's why the muslim brotherhood is fighting so hard to overcome our friend -- and when i say our, i'm not including the president. i know there's no love lost there. why?

in se the president there egypt is a muslim who has stood up to radical islam. that does not endear him to this administration. so it's so it's important to note where we are and i think it's also an indication as to why so many americans are concerned about where our country is and how fundamentally it's been transformed for the worst. there's more racial tension. i understand, you know, karl rove was accused of doing some division politics. you find a group, divide the group against each other and you know the majority will be on your side. you create groups. but this administration has been the master of division politics, even though it has created more racial strife than we've had since the 1960's.

even though we had a nation that elected an african-american president. and i've talked probably to thousands of people who have said, well, i voted for president obama because i wanted to be able to say i voted for the first african-american president. what happened to martin luther king's dream of a day in america when we are judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin? for heaven's sakes. to elect a man because of his of the as racist as any wackos in america who indeed actually are racist. you shouldn't be electing somebody because of the color

of their skin. elect them because of who they are, what they believe and whether they'll help the country. and we've seen the divisions in this country, we've seen more debt arise than was ever imaginable. mean, how a man who accused jordan w. bush of being unpatriotic because like in 2006, for heaven's sakes, we had a $160 billion deficit, about $160 billion or more going out than we had coming in, that's un-american, that's unpatriotic. what happens me? becomes president, he demand as $1.6 trillion -- demands a $1.6 trillion deficit. so if bush was unpatriotic for having a budget that created -- helped create $160 billion deficits, obviously it's

congress that passes the ultimate budget, with no thanks o the senate, but i guess that makes it 10 times more unpatriotic for anyone who supports a budget that creates 10 times more of a deficit. but it's interesting. as americans have gotten so upset in this election cycle, some are actually scared. and some of them reflect the opinion that i've mentioned, gentleman d from a senior from toqo -- togo, africa, when i was visiting there in years past and before i left he wanted to meet me and visit with me. as he explained, we were so excited here when you elected your first black president. but since he's been president, we've seen america grow weaker and weaker and please tell people in washington, so i keep

telling people here, mr. speaker, i want them to know what he said. since he's been president we've seen america grow weaker and weaker. and when america is weaker, we suffer. they're christians. they know where they're going when they die, but he was making emphatically clear that as america has gotten weaker and weaker in this administration, more domestic division in this country, under this president, friends around the world are suffering more than ever before. there are more christians being persecuted than ever in history. more jews being persecuted than ever in history. and despite this administration's repeated statements about all of the hate crimes against muslims, the f.b.i. statistics do not, have not, will not bear that out.

it's not muslims in america that are the number one victims of hate crimes. try looking at jews. try looking at others. because it's not the muslims. so, it begins to be a bit offensive as more christians , e being persecuted, killed in the world than ever at any time in our world history. -- history, to continually defend those who courts have said are co-conspirators in persecuting christians and the it's basically opposite to what america has been in the past.

so as that's gone and and people have gotten so up-- gone on and people have gotten so upset, it's amazing to see an ally in congress, ted cruz, being attacked for being for amnesty. i was here. i was thrilled when ted cruz got elected. he was him, i knew brilliant. i knew he was truthful. and so i was thrilled. and a number of us would meet, sometimes in his office, sometimes other places, trying to strategize, how do we stop the republican establishment caving in and doing the will of e administration, to allow a massive amnesty? we knew the administration was not enforcing the border properly. we knew that they were allowing people in in droves. and the more that came in illegally, the more others

heard, you can come in illegally. as one of the border patrolmen told me in the wee hours of the morning, we're called logistics by the drug cartels and the gangs in mexico. all they say they have to do is get people across the river and homeland security's logistics, we ship them anywhere they want to go. and there's a great deal of truth to that. o it's been amazing to see this reinvention of what really happened back in those days. we had a fantastic election in florida, where our friend was ected there, tea party favorite, thank goodness, we were so thrilled. it meant because of his promises we had another ally in the senate that would help us stop the republican establishment's cave to the obama administration's desire for amnesty. and chuck schumer, for all he

is, he actually can be quite persuasive. and john mccain, for all his efforts, 2007, that nearly cost him the chance to be the nominee so he could lose in defeat to the democrats, his push for amnesty in 2007 nearly kept him from being the nominee to lose in the general election. gosh, if it hadn't been for his -- i mean, if he had continued to push his amnesty, he would not have gotten the nomination and who knows? maybe barack obama would not have won in 2008. it's interesting to think about. but i was looking at this article by sara rumpback in january of 2015, and she had been asking about problems that i had and i pointed out, i referred back to broken promises by our speaker and why we needed a new speaker and it was the same establishment --

republican establishment problem we'd had. and as the article says, one of the biggest broken promises included promising to fight tooth and nail against obama's executive amnesty orders, then allowing the cromnibus bill to proceed forward. but it wasn't just that. it was so much that had been going on for a number of years. so there was no one who felt more dejected than our little group that was gathering regularly, trying to come up with ways to slow down the gang of eight bill. because we knew that once this handsome young -- handsome, young, articulate guy who had just been elected from florida was talked into being the leader on the bill, very clever getting him to be the leader on the bill, we knew it was going to be a very, very, very difficult thing to stop. going back, here's an article , by byron 15 of 2013

york, a washington examiner, a look deep inside the gang of eight bill and how they'll sell immigration reform to conservatives. he points out that this gang of eight bill says, of course some in the g.o.p. are still panicked by last november's election results. and inclined to sign on to almost any deal. more conservative republican lawmakers on capitol hill will have to be convinced that the gang's proposal is an acceptable way to go and it won't be easy. anyway, he points out, startling this week with the release of the bill, the gang of eight or gang will launch an extensive public information campaign with, you know, senator rubio leading, lots of press releases, frequently asked questions and fact sheets specifically addressing the concerns about reform that conservatives have raised in recent months. it also talks about the gang,

the g.o.p. gang of eight, talking about, members know full well the federal government has promised all these measures and more over the years and the border's still not secure, businesses still hire illegal immigrants. for example, congress passed multiple laws requiring entry-exit systems similar to what the gang has proposed. and the system has never been built. so gang members know that conservatives at least will be skeptical. the answer to the gang of eight hopes will reassure those skeptics is the concept of triggers. they've set up points at which the bill's requirements will have to meet before the process of amnesty will continue. but anyway, it goes on and discusses the gang of eight bill, americans had heard these promises before, going back to 1986, when a hero of mine, a hero of my friend, dana rohrabacher backer, who was a form -- dana rohrabacher, who was a speech writer, he got talked into signing off on an

amnesty that turned california blue probably for the rest of my lifetime. that was a republican president. that got tricked into doing that. got the amnesty, never got the enforcement. that's what the gang of eight bill was going to do and americans knew it. but we had to fight it like crazy. so anyway, just find it interesting, as someone who met with senator cruz on a regular basis, trying to strategyize. my friend steve king, with met in his office sometimes, but all of these efforts to stop this gang of eight bill that would have given amnesty, here's another from june 11, 2013, gang of eight immigration bill clings to senate hurdle. i know senator cruz was doing all he could to stop it. greatly appreciated. and actually, if they hadn't slowed that down, that gave us the ability to slow it down even further, but here's a bill -- an article from "the daily

signal." june 24, my anniversary, 2013. and it talked about that gang of eight bill now has ballooned to 1,190 pages. that makes it what you'd call comprehensive. and as i've pointed out to friends before, when you hear the word comprehensive bill, the loose definition of a comprehensive bill in congress is one in which some people want to hide things that could never possibly get passed if people knew what that were voting on. so it's comprehensive and massive. so you can hide those things that could never pass on their own if people knew what they were voting on. so, it's amazing to see in politics how perception that is completely false can be

considered true just because people are saying it. i know i was here and i am grateful that ted cruz got elected without his advice, his meeting with us, encouraging, doing all he could in the senate, i don't believe we would have topped -- stopped amnesty and i don't believe this election would even be competitive. the democratic nominee would walk away with this thing had the gang of eight bill been passed as they wanted. one other thing that has been really intriguing, mr. speaker, i have -- might i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has seven minutes left. mr. gohmert: this verse has been quoted time and time again in recent years and i know there are people that freak out when i quote bible verse.

because, you know, they had one of these liberal teaches that are didn't teach them the truth about american history. and the fact that the bible has been most quoted book, nothing even close, so many times more than any other book, any other author ever in american history. the bible has been quoted on the house floor, senate floor, by presidents more than any other book. you know, the president says now we're not a christian nation, you should say i won't debate that, now i think he's right. we were. we started out based on judeo-christian principles, so much so that a very thorough decision by the u.s. supreme court back in the late 1800's when we had finally done the right thing and eliminated the scourge to this nation that had held this nation back for many decades called slavery was finally ended, and the court, the supreme court went through all of the foundings, the founders, the statements of the founders, statements and

founding documents, statements of state constitutions, and concluded after all of thes remaintation of evidence, you know, 130, 140 years later, they said, this is a christian nation. well, it was back in the late 1800's. but it doesn't hurt to still quote scripture. we have other religions represented in the house. . friends, you can be muslim, buddhist, agnostic, whatever you want to be. got a number of really wonderful jewish friends in congress. you can be whatever you want to be because a government based on judeo-christian principles will protect everyone's right. islam will not protect rights like that. there's really not another religion that beliefs of which will protect every religion, no religion equally. and that's because we know.

god gives us those choices so he -- who are we to take them away? but back in second chronicles. the verse is very clear. and god was pointing this out. although i realize moses, that's up there, the only full . ce profile here in this room because he was considered the greatest lawgiver of all times, although the supreme court last summer basically said forget what moses said, god said, he didn't know what he was talking about when jesus quoted about marriage, they were a bunch of fools. we're much smarter than mowses nd jesus and so -- moses and jesu. second chronicles 7:14. if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways,

then i will hear from heaven and i will forget their sin and will heal their land. preached a sermon on that last summer titled humble or crumble. we need to humble ourselves as a nation. but we don't even have to do it as a nation. it makes clear. it's not everybody. doesn't have to be everybody in america, just those who are called by the lord's name. if you humble yourself, pray, see god's face, turn from your wicked ways, i will hear from heaven. i'm going to heal your land. you will be blessed beyond. i really think after the civil war, and we finally ended the scourge of slavery, when we started being blessed beyond measure so the 20th century was just absolutely incredible and we became a superpower, blessed beyond measure. when we became a superpower, of course, like so many times in history, nations that were

judeo the jew dayo -- beliefs, when they turned from god then god let them go. so that's why christians believed it was such an important verse. i heard it thousands of times in recent years and i just have to note, mr. speaker, it is interesting now that christian leaders across the nation have said, i think we're going to have to change this. let's have a new translation. how about if we say, if my people, who are called by my name, will select a leader who says he's never humbled himself, he's never asked forgiveness of god, if we can just get a leader who will never humble himself, then god will hear that from heaven and he will heal our land? i want to close with this -- these words from francis scott key, april 14, 1814. as a captive on a british ship and the british unmercifully

bombed fort mchenry, he didn't figure there was much left and when the morning came and there as old glory he penned the star spanningled banner. i will close with the last verse. o thus be it ever when free men shall stand between their loved home and the war's desolation. bless with victory and peace, may the heaven rescued land, praise the power, capitalize power, that have made and preserved us as a nation. then conquer, we must when our cause it is just. nd this be our motto, in god is our trust. and the star spangled banner and triumph shall wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. may we remember those words. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. does the gentleman have a question on the motion to adjourn? mr. gohmert: i move we do hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next for morning hour debate.

c-span.org. >> former president bill

clinton campaigned for his wife, hillary, in winnsboro, south carolina, yesterday. jim hodges and former south carolina state representative boyd brown led off that rally. [applause] >> hey, folks. how are you? well, this is going to be a fun night. we got president clinton backstage. he's going to come out here in just a few minutes and he's been traveling the state, as you can imagine, all week and over the last several months and he's no stranger to little towns across the south. he's from one. he knows where we come from and what we're about here in small towns like winnsboro. but it's my honor tonight to introduce someone that's become a very good friend of mine, someone who's become even a mentor of mine during the course of the past few years is jim hodges. former governor hodges is one

that enabled so many kids across the state to attend schools at a lower cost and we can thank him for that. we can thank governor hodges for pushing public education and making that an initiative in columbia. and when governor hodges was there, governor hodges saw what i saw and that was south carolina becoming more and more conservative and more and more republican. and that's what's important about this weekend when you go vote. we have an opportunity to put our best foot forward this weekend as democrats to nominate someone who can take on donald trump and the republicans in november. and -- [applause] mr. brown: let me tell you when you give republicans the keys to the governor's mansion and the keys to the state house and the keys to the senate -- your roads fall apart.

medicaid goes -- they don't expand medicaid. it goes unfunded in south carolina. you see schools left behind in rural parts of this state. you see -- you just see folks who need voices in columbia go without them because it's not about the people. it's about the interest, the business interest, the corporate interest. and that's what we have to fight beginning this weekend by nominating hillary clinton this weekend to be the democratic nominee. [applause] mr. brown: so, folks, as a native of winnsboro, someone that's lived here my entire life, i can't be more excited to introduce governor jim hodges to y'all. veryone, give him a warm winnsboro welcome. [applause]

governor hodges: good evening. i'm not tall enough for this podium here. well, thanks to boyd. there are a lot of reasons to be here, but boyd brown is one of them. so big hand for boyd brown bringing the vets together. all right. well, let me just say i'm excited to be back in fairfield county and in winnsboro and excited to bring president bill clinton. i know when you saw me come out you said, oh, my gosh, it's clinton. it's bait and switch. you said hodges instead. but it is my pleasure to introduce bill clinton. but before i do, let me tell but this lks. there is a reason -- this election. there is a reason why i'm here. i feel so strongly about this election and i do because i have served with two democratic presidents during my political lifetime. one was the man that i'll introduce later named william jefferson clinton. wonderful president, wasn't he? all right.

he was. let me remind you during the clinton years about what we had as a country. we had the lowest unemployment rate that i can remember. we had wage growth across every spectrum. whether you were from a small town like winnsboro or a big city like new york, whether you were african-american or lateano or white, whether you were older or younger, you have more money in that era, didn't you? spectacular. and then i served with a president and worked with a president by the name of barack obama. i think we all know who that is, don't we? [applause] governor hodges: all right. president barack obama brought us health care for every american citizen. president barack obama got rid of osama bin laden. president obama has brought to us an unemployment rate that is down below 5% nationally after the great recession. how about that? so two great democratic presidents that we have had the chance of serving with who did

great things for our country. i say that, my friends, because we have the chance now to elect another president, and we know in south carolina what it's like to be under one party rule, do we not? we are in a system where we have one party rule where health care, through medicaid, is denied to citizens, where voting rights of some us in this room are restricted. that's the sort of south carolina that we live in, and the question is, who are we as democrats going to nominate and send as our representative to try to make sure that the same things that have happened here to you and to me will not happen across this one. that is why this is so important. and we have a couple choices in the democratic primary, and i admire senator sanders for his passion, but the question is whether we are going to nominate someone like barack obama and bill clinton who can get things done, who can cut unemployment, who can raise wages, who can address problems

like social security, or are we going to elect someone like that or elect a single issue candidate who's focused purely on trying to take out -- take after wall street? now, i tell you my own experience and i think yours is i want somebody who is going to be able to be president for four or eight years and do things like drive wages up and do things like build on the obama legacy. that's the kind of president i want because that's the kind of president we've been successful with, have we not? that's what we need. so your choice is a single issue candidate who has one issue but if he does all that on day one is going to have a very lonely four years or a candidate who will build on the legacy of barack obama and bill clinton who will help us do those great things that other democratic presidents have done and as i say, you know what is at stake because you have seen it here in south carolina over the past few years about what happens and that one person, my

friends, with a republican congress, with a republican senate and if they have a republican president they will have everything. so we are one person away from seeing some of the same things that have been harmful here to happen to everybody across this country and that is why the duty that you have saturday is so sacred and important because the question is whether or not south carolina is going to set the standard for everyone else. are we on saturday going to be the ones that keep things moving in the right direction and make certain that this next month of march is one in which we across racial lines show that hillary clinton is going to be our standard barrier and build on that legacy of bill clinton and barack obama, do you think we're going to do that? [applause] that? [applause] it's my pleasure to introduce a wonderful friend south carolina.

for better than 30 year probably better than 40 year, there's a first couple that have been invested in our state have come here and worked on a wide range of issues from children's health to education to just a whole host of things, many friends across south carolina, and then we were fortunate enough to elect as president a man from arkansas by the name of bill clinton and as boyd said he, did a terrific job. budget surpluses, education investments, all these great things we remember from the bill clinton era. and we are really fortunate to have him because he's a true statesman here in winnsboro today to talk to us about the montana rble campaign. it is my pleasure to present to you the former president of the united states and the next first gentleman of the united states, bill clinton. place applause -- [applause] 6

♪ president clinton: thank you very much. you've got to foregive me for being a little hoarse. if you're not hoarse near the end of the campaign you're not working hard enough system of first i want to thank our good friend, governor jim hodges he, did a great job for you when he was your governor. he's been a wonderful friend and supporter to hillary and me and we're grateful. thank you former representative boyd brown for what you said. superintendent j.r. green, thanks for having us here in this school. i want to thank beth reid, the chair of the fairfield county school board and members of the

board who are here, henry miller, william frick. i told them back stage that when i was governor of arkansas, i used to tell people that the best job i ever had was when i was attorney general. because i didn't have to appoint or disappoint. and if i did anything people didn't like i'd just blame it on the constitution. and when i was governor, i thought it was harder, but i thought being on the school board was hardest of all because when you make somebody mad on the school board, they all knew you already. so i thank them for serving. i want to thank mary gail douglas, state representative, thank you for being here. i'd like to acknowledge some visitors because they represent what we've been trying to do in hillary's campaign, encouraging people everywhere. we have four visitors from florida who are working for

hillary in florida who decided to come up here and spend the last two days going around seeing folks in south carolina and telling why they think hillary should be president. the mayor of miami beach, my old friend. me the mayor of tallahassee, the mayor of miramar and the chair of the miami-dade county commission. please stand up. you guys, thank you very much. [applause] i know my old friend john lewis has been down here from georgia too, campaigning. this is kind of a family affair for all of us. i love south carolina. my daughter learned to ride her kiowha n the beach at island. and my candidate for president came here when she graduated

from law school. working for marion wright edelman of bennettsville, south carolina, in the children's defense fund, to figure out why in the world african-american teenage boys were being jailed, imprisoned as adults, and having their whole lives taken away from them. and children's defense fund and the report hillary filed helped to change juvenile justice practice in south carolina and end that once and for all, which i think was very important system of this is an important state in our lives. [applause] look, this has been sort of an interesting election, don't you think? you listen to the two parties in their debates and gosh, when i hear those guys, i sometimes wonder if i'm living in the same country with the same challenges. but i think i understand it. and we'll start with what the

issue is. how many of you watched president obama's state of the union address, the last one he gave? raise your hand if you did. ok, for those that didn't, i'll give you a 90-second summary. here's what he said. he said, look, we've still got some serious challenges. but you should feel optimistic because our economy is doing better than any big economy in the world. we've had 14 million jobs in five years, that's the fastest job growth we've had since that other democrat, whatever his name is, was in the white house. yeah, me, that's right. almost forgot. been a long time. anyway, then he said, for the first time in our history, we have over 90% of our people with health insurance. and once we convince all the republican states to take medicaid and let the working poor everywhere insure

themselves and their kids, we'll be at 95%. and he said if you look at the future, we've got the youngest, most diverse work force of any big country in the world. we've got the best scientific and technology base. we've got an unbelievable system of higher education. we're in good shape. and you should be optimistic. and he painted this beautiful picture of the future. which i completely agree with. if i got one of those magic lanterns, you know, and a genie came out, and she said, the enie, you can be 25 again, i'd say, i'll take it. now, you can be 25 again but you have to decide right now where you want to live when you're 50. i would take the united states in -- in a heart beat.

the picture the president painted was beautiful. why are there so many upset people? too many people stare at the future and can't find thems in the picture. because most americans still haven't got an pay raise. it takes 10 years to get over a financial crash. and that happened in late 2008. we got the jobs back ahead of schedule. but not the income increases. because there are too many young people with so much college debt piled up, they think they'll never be able to move out of their parents' house much less take a job they like, much less borrow money to start a business. there's 1,000 stories like that. there are people with parents with alzheimer's and children with autistic conditions who think they'll never be able to take care of their kids and work because we don't have paid

leave. one of only seven countries in the world without it. and i could go on and on. but you get the idea. so the person who just won the primary in south carolina said, on the other party, said, vote across i'll build a wall the rio grande river and i'll stop buying stuff from china and you can make it here again and we'll send all the immigrants home, you can have their jobs. and basically, i'll make america great again. hillary says, we never stopped being great, what we need to do is -- [applause] what we need to do is make america whole again so everyone can see themselves in that picture of the future. [applause]

so we can all rise together. that's what this election is about. and she says, instead of building a wall, why don't we build ladders of opportunity and empowerment that everybody can climb and tear down the barriers holding everybody back. because we can only go forward if we go forward together. [applause] so to do that, we have to have an economy that benefits everybody. that's one of the proudest things for me when i was able to serve as your president is that ll groups rose together. and every income group. unlike trickle down economics which has had, they've had three presidents, president reagan and the two bushes, and only worked a little bit when president reagan was there because we'd never been on an eight-year

sugar high before where we cut taxes for mostly high income people and spent like crazy. we had 40% more jobs when we went back to invest in the middle class and lift people up from the bottom. that's what i tried to do we got 40% more jobs. 95% of people had higher income gains. upper middle class did 25% better. the middle class did 70% better. the working class did twice as well. the thing i'm proudest of is the bottom 20% of earners increased their incomes 30 times more than they did under president reagan. we moved 100 times as many people from poverty into the middle class because we rose together. the highest income gains were among african-american families, led by -- followed by latino families, and then everybody else gained too. as far as i know, it's the only time that ever happened. why? because we made a deliberate decision that nobody could be

fully successful until everybody could rise. that's what this election is about. you've got to have ladders to more good jobs and higher incomes. hillary proposes among other things that we build an infrastructure worthy of a great country. we're letting our roads, bridges, airports and ports play out. but we're also ignoring what's under the ground. you've all been horrified, i'm sure, by what happened in flint, michigan. it broke everybody's heart. but i got news for you, it is far from the only place in america where children have elevated lead levels in their blood because we got these old, rusted out, worn out, broken down pipes. if we replaced them all we could create a zillion good jobs and give a healthy future to

countless children and we could rise together. [applause] i'll give you another example. almost every state in america, the growth centers are like the ones i visited today. you know, i went to a training center outside greenville today and one of four in the country i visited where high school students can spend two hours a day studying and becoming certified in advanced mechanics, various manufacturing skills, cosmetology, even certified firemen. for 2 1/2 hours a day they spend the rest of the time in class. they get out of high school and go right to work or to college and it's their choice because they are empowered. everybody needs that. where are people falling behind? all over america. in small towns and rural areas. one other thing we ought to do

with this infrastructure fund is bring affordable, rapid broadband to every small town and rural area in america. and people will build their own future. [applause] if you get it you're in the national economy overnight. she believes that we ought to put up 500 million solar panels in the next foufer years. she believes we ought to make it within eight years so every home in america can be electrified by energy people own, coming from wind, sun and other clean sources. she believes that, first of all, you can't export those jobs. you've got to do that work right here. modernize our buildings, bring clean energy, put the american people to work. i'll give you a little example. i have this project in my foundation where we try to work on the american economy and i have this crazy idea a few years ago that i brought to the labor movement. i said what if we took the

pension funds of the public unions that are in good shape and they invested in putting private sector union members in making our buildings energy efficient? lower the electric bills, put tons of people to work, you cannot export the jobs. first two or three people looked at me like i needed an appointment with a doctor. but eventually the union movement came up with $16 billion to do this. largest private fund in america. they spent about $7 billion of it. they have already created almost 60,000 jobs. the pension funds are in good shape because you make a profit investing in infrastructure, lowering people's power bills, increasing their energy efficiency and creating jobs not only for the people going to work but all the people that supply them. we can do this. and it'll make a difference. we can do it also by

dramatically increasing the amount of loans to small businesses. en i was president, we spent $17.5 billion through the small business administration just loaning money to minority businesses. that was twice as much as had been loaned in the entire 40-year history of the small business administration and guess what? we had a record number of small businesses. this is not rocket science. hillary wants to make sure that all the banks in south carolina and america know that these new rules designed to stop wall street from ever wrecking main street again do not and should not apply to old fashioned community banking where you are loaning people money who are your friends and neighbors and you know they're a good risk. she also thinks we ought to give people incentives to invest in areas left out and left behind. i'll give you an example in the so-called red state.

normally votes republican now. west virginia. those tole mine -- those coal miners didn't do anything wrong. it's just that we know we've got to do something to fight climate change and besides we got so much other energy that's cleaner and cheaper, their numbers are going down. but they did not deserve to be abandoned by america. they did not deserve to be told, ok, we've got two counties in west virginia now where the number one source of male income is a disability check. you got all these people waking up in the morning looking in the mirror thinking, every single tomorrow is just going to be like yesterday. i am powerless to change my future. could be why west virginia now leads the country in addiction to prescription drugs and heroin. these people are dying of drug abuse, yeah, but they're also

dying of a brecken heart. so hillary was the first candidate to propose that we spend $10 billion to treat this like a public health problem in every state in america. more mental health facilities, more drug treatment facilities but also give serious tax incentives for people to invest in those areas and give us all a chance to begin again so we can rise together. we've got to do this everywhere in the country. those are the ladders we need. we need paid leave and equal pay so women can get back in the work force and contribute to our wealth without giving up the strength of the family and raising children. every society's most important job is raising kids. in a modern economy, you have to be able to succeed in being a parent and being a worker. and we can no longer afford the luxury of being one of only seven countries in the world

that gives no paid leave. we also have to have a payment system for workers that are in these big companies so that when companies make a profit they don't give it all to the shareholders and top management. you know -- [applause] i'll just give you an example. it's not a republican or democratic thing. there's, i think you got a new core steel mill in south carolina. they pay weekly bonus. they give the employees weekly bonuses based on their profitability. and the employees all get an education stipend for every child they have. one guy in one city in south carolina, back when i was a governor, had already sent eight kids to college. on his new core stipend. then they included spouses. then they included the employees themselves. then they had a profit sharing plan that went to the bottom 90%, not to the top 10%.

they shared the benefits of their success with the people who made their success possible. companies used to do that as a matter of cause. you wouldn't have clapped if i said this 40 years ago because so many companies were doing it. now you say, my gosh, i can't believe anybody is doing that. we've got to set up the tax code and other rules so that companies that take care of their workers and their communities are properly rewarded as compared to those who don't. [applause] then we got to get rid of the barriers. what barriers do we need to take down? we have the best system of higher education in the country, in the world. but too many kids are graduating with too much debt. who knows somebody with college debt. -- who knows somebody with college debt? here's what hillary wans to do. first of all, make it possible for anybody to go to any public

institution, any historically black college or university, any other private college or university open to people of all income groups with a reasonably low tuition and a high rate of success, make it possible to graduate from all those places 100% debt free. [applause] give free tuition to people whose incomes are so low they need it. give them even more support. make it possible for every student to work 10 hours a week in a work study program, that holds down college costs and keeps tuition down, by the way. then, let the people who can afford to pay, pay. higher income people are going to have to pay higher taxes but you don't want to pay it to get their own kids free tuition. if you want me to pay more taxes, use my money to put your people to work in good jobs doing these things that can really make a difference.

make it possible for people to graduate debt free. and then deal with the debt that's already accumulated. i don't know how many young people i meet, every time i go to a new town i try to go someplace and buy a cup of coffee. always a young person giving me coffee. more than 50% of the time i say, how long you been working here, and they tell me, and i'll give you my last conversation. happened when i was down to see my granddaughter a few days ago, i stopped in this coffee shop and said how long have you been working here? young woman says, five years. on and off. i said, what do you do when you're off? she said, going to college. what are you doing when you're on? she said, paying my debts. i said, you living at home? yeah, mama can't make enough money to help me but at least the rent is free. i couldn't make the debt payment if i couldn't live at home. ve years later, hadn't got a degree, hasn't paid her debts off. hillary wants to end that in the

following way. number one. a college loan is the only loan that you can't refinance at a lower interest rate. did you all know that? i met a woman just yesterday whom i know because i do wiz -- business with her. i went in to buy a pair of how is your son doing? he said -- she said he's got student loans with 9%. i said you got a mortgage? how much is the rate on that? she said 4%. if you allowed college loans to be refinanced like home loans, overnight, 25 million americans would save $2,000. 25 million. just on refinancing. the government's got no business making money off college loans. and hillary wants to stop that, allow you to refinance. here's the most important thing.

her proposal would take anybody's college debt, wherever they went to school, however far they went, however big it was, and let them pay it out over 20 years as a small, fixed percentage of their after-tax income. now think about this. what does that mean? it means you can move out of your -- out of your parents' house. it means if you take a job that you love that doesn't take as much -- doesn't pay quite as much as the one that you were using to pay your loan off, your loan payment will go down. it means if after 20 years you haven't paid it off, the rest is for given. if you do a public service job, you can get rid of $17,000 of your loan and if you spend two years in americorps, the national service program, your entire loan is forgiven. all of it. now think of that. [applause] in other words, we can make the

country stronger and lift this enormous burden off huge numbers of young people so they can use their education, a to do something they love, and b, to make it possible for us all to rise together. it's very important. [applause] health care. we got to finish this health care bill. got to get everybody on medicaid who is eligible. we've got to get the drug prices down. we've got to get the co-pays and deductibles down. we've got to change the way we pay for health care. so more and more of us enroll in plans where we just pay to stay healthy. instead of paying by specific procedures. every place in america this has been done the price has dropped this equality of health goes up, the errors go down because there's no incentive to do something that you don't need done and every sinentive for the people ininsuring you to make

their profits by keeping you healthy. everywhere we do it, it's worked. we've got to do this. what are the other barriers? some of them aren't economic. we need prison reform. we've got the highest percentage of people behind bars of any country in the world. too many of them did nonviolent things for which they got sentences that were too long. the president has done about all he can do right now without legislation because of the limits on his authority and only 10% of the people in prison are in federal prison. but the federal government can set a powerful example and incentive size states to do the same. we can do this, there are a lot of republicans who agree with us on this. it's like the heroin and prescription drug epidemic. that's an equal opportunity kill e, it kills regardless of whether you're republican or democrat. and this over-incarceration is burdening state budgets, keeping

people from supporting the schools, keeping people from supporting colleges. it's one reason the tuition is so high. and it's wasting people's lives who have got no more business in prison than the man in the moon. hillary, i think, is the only one who said, not only should we reduce the sentences but she set aside $5 billion to say, you can't turn these people out without preparing them for the transeducation. give them the skills to make a living. give them an education so they can make a living. and don't make them check a box by being asked, have you ever had a record? let people start again. let's begin again. we need police reform. did you see hillary was here a couple of days ago with the mothers of all those young african-american men who have been killed either by police officers or by their neighbor standing their ground or whatever they said? but we also need police. we're sick of seeing movies on

television news. that look like they ought to be in a bad gangster film of people being shot on the streets that had no business being shot. we're sick of seeing riots in ferguson or baltimore or all this. but we do need the police. remember what we saw in san bernardino when those people were kill all those innocent folks out there, where the police were risking their lives time and time again to save people without regard to their race, to their religion, to anything. they did what you want. so how do we get the best of both worlds? sheriffs back there listening to me, i'm glad he's here. maybe i won't get a ticket on the way out of town. [laughter] look, we dealt with this when i was president. we put 110,000 more police officers on the street. we had the entire support of the african-american clergy, for example. why? because we wanted to police the

-- we wanted the police to look like the communities they were policing and we wanted enough police so they could walk the streets, not ride around in cars or some quasi-military equipment, but walk the streets, know the people who live there, prevent crime in the first place. help kids stay out of trouble. if something bad happens, you've got to have a neighborhood counsel that can meet with the police and tell each other the truth, decide what happens, decide what needs to be done. [applause] that way we can have police reform and the police we need. and she will take the lead in doing that. we need to make sure that we stop demonizing people that are our friends and neighbors, like planned parenthood. they give health care to a very large number of low income women and children without which they wouldn't have health care. it's terrible the way they were talked about. we need to make sure that we pass sensible gun safety

legislation that has background checks so we don't have to have what happened in that happen anymore. now hillary has been encouraged to just talk about this in states that don't have a lot of gun owners. but she talks about it everywhere. you know why? -- lived the first 25 years of our married life in arkansas. i was the governor of a state where we had to close the schools on the first day of deer season every year because nobody s going to show up anyway. where more than half the people have a hunting license. when i was 10 years old, i had a .22, shooting cans off the fence post. on this little bitty farm we had where i hope i will -- and the last person ever to be elected president who lived in a house

as a kid without indoor plumbing. i hope none of my successors ever have that experience. i sure learned the difference between a poisonous and nonpoisonous snake, doing it. ut look, i get that. we passed background checks. we banned the most frequently used assault weapons by gangs that were cutting kids down. we limited ammunition clips to 10 bullets, nobody missed a day of the deer season, nobody missed a sport shooting contest and nobody who lived 40 miles or 40 minutes from the nearest law enforcement was unable to have a gun to protect themselves and their family. we got to do this as a family. now look what the great gift south carolina has given america. it was in reverend pinkney's church, when those people lived their fate and forgive that troubled young man for killing their pastoring their state senator and all those other

people they loved. it was awesome. what happened? it melted the hearts of the republicans, not just the democrats, in the state legislature. a direct descendant of jefferson davis, the president of the confederacy, said, we've got to live together in the future. if i can get over it, the rest of you can. take the flag down. take the flag down. now, -- [applause] we've got to talk to our neighbors because what happens is, gun lob bowe tries to convince everybody that all -- that oh, there they go, the democrats are coming for your guns. that's bull. they're wrong. because of that background law we had when i was president, one million felons, fuge ties, stalkers and domestic abusers couldn't by handguns. at the end of the eight year, we had a 33-year low in the murder in and a 46-year low

illegal deaths from gun homicides. 46-year low. don't tell me background checks don't make a difference. they do and we can have them and most hunters agree with us. if we want inclusive economics where we all rise we've got to live in an inducive society where we are all treated fairly and our voices are heard. the last thing we've got to have is more inclues i politics. we have to quit rewarding people for gumming up the works, for trying to disempower americans. that's why the president should make this appointment for the supreme court. [applause] whether he gets that person confirmed or not, remember there's better than a 50-50 chance that in addition to the vacancy now there'll be one,

maybe two other appointments in the next four years. we need a supreme court that expands voting rights, not contracts them. we need a supreme court that revisits that citizens united decision. and for those of you who don't know what it is, everybody knows what the first amendment is, it gives, among other things, you, among all of you, the right to freedom of speech. ow, that's fine. but in citizens united, the supreme court, having already said that a corporation is a person, which is not so ease yes, has said that free spetch extends to the money in your pocket. so when you spend it on politics, you're just exercising your freedom of speech. therefore, they said, a minimum wage worker and a billionaire are equally free to spend

whatever they want on politics. now, i used to teach constitutional law and if i gave that problem on a test an somebody wrote that opinion i'd flunk them. i don't think there was any basis for it but that's what they said. we need to revisit that. everybody that gives money ought to give it in the open. you know, most of our mothers raised us not to hide what we did. if you don't want anybody to know you did that, you probably shouldn't do it. we need to deal with each other on equal terms. if you want inclues i economics, if you want to hi in an inclusive society, we've got to have more inclusive politics. so we discuss things with each other instead of calling each other names and running off and trying to buy public opinion or political power instead of discuss with our neighbors what the right thing for all of us to do so we can all rise.

this is very important. [applause] you also ieve that, must wonder what's this got to do with the job of the next president to keep america safe, to the right kind of commander in chief. and i'll just tell you what hillary thinks. hillary believes it's really important that we have a strong military. she was on the armed services committee, first senator from new york ever to sit. the pentagon thought she was so good they asked her to serve on a special committee to plan the military of the 21st century. it was a bipartisan committee. they recommended that we change our military tactics to do exactly what president obama is now doing in trying to defeat isis. in more big land wars in the middle east. t's an away game we can't win. instead, send a special forces -- send special forces to help people who are putting their own lives on the line to have a

decent society where they live. build up their capacity. fill in the blanks. do what we can. but don't forget, even there, the real battle we're fighting is over the social media and the brains of more than a billion people. those people in san bernardino were motivated other the social media. they were converted to a philosophy which said something leek this -- have i got a deal for you. if you're willing to go out and kill yourself, take 40 or 50 years off your life, you can go immediately to heaven but only if you kill a lot of other people who never did a thing to you an take 40 or 50 years off their lives. if we can't beat that argument, shame on us. so when hillary got to be secretary of state, the first thing she did was contact the young tech wizards that helped president obama defeat her in the primary and then get elected president. she said, look, you guys are

good at this. and you know who lives in cyberspace. help us sell america. and our vision. but she also knew that we could not do it without proving that our example of embracing the freedom of religion, respecting everybody's religion, or lack of it, is one reason we're still the most reals you free country in the world because we haven't tried to jam anybody's real john down anybody else's throat so people can hear their inner stirrings and listen to people calling forth the best in them that means we can't win this fight without the moderate muslims in america system of when the other guys say we ought to get rid of all the muslims and labe all these people muslim terrorist, you just remember the vast, vast, vast majority of american muslims deplore this kind of murder just as much as you do and we need them to help

us build a safe future for america. [applause] that's my case for her. it's better to build ladders of opportunity and empowerment than to build walls. it's better to tear down barriers, economic and noneconomic. that enable taos -- us to work together, to live together, to make decisions to go forward together. and she ought to be president because she's qualified to be command for the chief and to lead us on these fronts. because she's the only person that's spent a lifetime actually making things happen. and you need to -- you need a changemaker. from the time she came here as a young law school graduate to south carolina, to try to get teenagers out of adult prisons, until the day she walked out of our foundation and started running for president, in every job she's ever had, she's made a difference. in every job she ever had in

washington, d.c. -- [applause] she worked with republicans as well as democrats. which is a big deal. if you want to get anything done. she passed a bill when she was first lady with the man in congress, the republican leader, tom delay who disliked me more than anybody in congress. this is a true story. but this is an example of what she does. she went to congressman tom delay from texas, the republican leader, and she said, congressman, i know we don't agree on very much, and he said, hillary, do we agree on anything? she said, yeah. he said, what is it? she said, you love your children, don't you? he said, sure, what's that got to do with anything. she said, i know you adopted those children. and that was an act of grace for which all people should honor you. ut our foster care rolls are

exploding with older kids aging out of foster care, being thrown out into the world new york place to live, nowhere to go to college, no way to get any job training, nothing. we can't let this happen. we've got to get people to adopt older children and children with special needs. people are afraid to adopt noninfants and they're afraid they can't afford to help children with special needs. we now know, by the way that one barrier we ought to get rid of is people afraid to hire those with some kind of disability because they make great employees for what they can do. we need to do that too. so anyway -- [applause] anyway, he said what do you want me to do? she said, we need to give people more tax credits, you republicans like to do that. let's give them a tax break if they adopt older kids. let's give them extra money if they adopt kids with special needs to help them. and let's make sure these kids don't age out and are just thrown out into the world at 18. they passed the bill together. i signed the bill. but the -- by the time i left

office, we had incressed by 80% the number of adoptions out of foster care. but she always makes something good happen. i can gi you a thousand examples but you get the picture. we need a changemaker that will empower you, that will tear down the barrier, build up the ladders, then you've got to walk up the ladders. we've got to go forward together. the thing that's making people feel so wacky is, you've got so many people who think life is a dead end for them. you've got other people who still have their hope, young people, but they think they'll never get to climb the ladder because they can't get rid of the debt. it's leek having big weights on your ankles when you're trying to climb up the ladder. we've got to rise together. to do that, we need a changemaker. and i'll just close with this.

the last answer to the last question in the debate held in south carolina explains better than anything i could why i believe she's the best choice for president. i don't know if you remember that. the democrats had a debate in south carolina. and i use this because it reflects well on both hillary and her opponent, as human beings and why they belong to our party. at the end of the debate, the moderators -- the moderator sprung a surprise. they said is there anything we haven't discussed tonight you think we should have talked about and he called on hillary first. she said, yeah, i want to talk about the water in flint. you know, i took an extra year in law school she studied the impacts of contaminated water, especially with lead, on child development. and she said, i was so horrified when i heard about this, i

called the mayor, i asked is there anything i can do. i'd like to send somebody to see you, i'll send somebody down there the mayor said, i'll tell you what she can do. she can get on television and say, i don't want to talk about the campaign, i don't want to talk about anything, flint asks for this much money they only got 10% this is why they need the other 90%. hillary did it, they got the money. everything they asked for. now -- [applause] i have no doubt that's not the only reason they got the money but it sure helped to have a national figure go on national television and say, forget about me, forget about my campaign, these people need this money, these kids are in danger. when they asked her opponent, he reflected the same values. but he had a different response. he said, he was mortified by what happened and the governor should resign. because he would not have treated an upper income suburb that way. that is doubtless true he wouldn't have done that, maybe

he should resign. but he doesn't really care what two democrats running for president think a republican governor should do. her immediate instinct was not to blame, although there was plenty of blame to go around, but to ask, what can i do to make it bet her that's what you want a president to do. every day. say, what can i do to make sure we all rise together? when we look at the picture the president painted of the future, i see my face there, i see my children there, i see my grandchildren there, without regard to race or religion or anything else, we're going to rise together. that's why i want you to vote for her in this primary. god bless you. [applause] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]