zones receive contracting assistance and pricing preference for federal contracts. for the last two decades this program has enjoyed bipartisan support. it benefits communities in both rural and urban areas. . it works with the s.b.a. to update locations of federal hub zones and in some cases to remove an area's hub zone status. many small businesses and communities that lose their hub zone status, including will in mr. delaney's district in maryland, believe that the process is just too abrupt. there's not enough time for ese small businesses and the communities they support to adjust. the short redesignation process also inhibits long-term investment in these communities, which is badly needed. this does not give local lawmakers in those areas enough time to adjust to potentially large job losses that would negatively impact those communities. the delaney amendment extends the redesignation process,

giving underserved areas additional time to respond to the loss of their hub zone status. this is good for small businesses that are using the hub zone program, this is good for the employees that work for those businesses, and it's good for the communities that are benefiting from these additional local jobs. mr. chairman, on behalf of my friend and colleague, congressman delaney, i urge support of this amendment and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. i'd like to recognize for a minute the chairman of the small business committee, the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the house small business committee, which i chair, has oversight responsibility of the hub zone program. our committee has not yet had the opportunity to hold hearings on the program, to uncover ways it can probably be

improved. it wouldn't be prudent to extend or expand the program until the committee has had the opportunity to perform its due diligence. i am committed to working in a bipartisan manner with our ranking member, ms. velazquez, to -- and others, to hold hearings and develop legislation to update and reform and improve the hub zone program. i would therefore urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, but inis right them all to share their ideas, as we work through regular order, and the committee process. that way we can be sure to take the action that best serves american small businesses and this country. i thank you very much and i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman from delaware is ecognized. mr. delaney: thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. carney: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. delaney i know would like

to see an extension, which is why he's offered this amendment, so that the affected communities have some time to react to the phase-out position, tension phase-out, of the -- the potential phase-out, of the hub zones in those areas. i thank the gentleman for this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez. ms. velazquez: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to this amendment. over the years the small business committee has seen the hub zone program move further and further away from its goal and this amendment would only amplify this problem. allowing a massive expansion of the program, as has been proposed, would greatly reduce the efficacy of the program by steering contracts away from active economically distressed

areas. the amendment will also dilute the competition in hub zone contracting opportunities, as well as in the free and open marketplace. in some cases agencies will even be required to pay up 10% more for goods and services to companies that would otherwise not qualify for the program. the chairman and i are committed to working on the hub zone program, the committee plans on conducting a hearing in the fall and i'm working on a comprehensive reform bill. we will welcome mr. delaney's participation, as we look further into how we can improve this program, while ensuring that contracts are awarded to those areas that need them most. however, i cannot in good conscience support the inclusion of this pro-- provision. it has not been vetted by the committee of jurisdiction, and there's not any evidence that

this amendment will further the mission of the hub zone program , by supporting economically disadvantaged areas. i therefore ask my fellow members to vote no on this mendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, just let me close by saying that we know there's some concern about redesignating the hub zones. but we've listened and i think it's best that we wait and let the authorizing committees of jurisdiction work through this issue, so therefore i urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from delaware. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. carney: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from delaware is recognized. mr. carney: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from delaware will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 51 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, earlier this year the treasury department -- i have an amendment. i do have an amendment at the desk. i'm the designee for congressman desan tills. -- desantis. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 51 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. zeldin of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from new york and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from new york. mr. zeldin: thank you, mr. speaker. earlier this year the treasury department transferred $1.7 billion to iran's central bank to resolve a long-running financial dispute regarding iran's arms purchases before the revolution of 1979. the agreement involved the return of $400 million in iranian funds that the united states seized after the revolution, plus an additional $1.3 billion in interest. this financial transaction was carried out through the treasury department's judgment fund, a permanent indefinite appropriation that was created by congress in 1956 to pay judgments entered against the united states. while the u.s. department of the treasury claims that the islamic revolutionary guard corps, irgc, remains sanctioned under our current sanctions regime, an associate fellow at the foundation for defense of democracy, recently noted that

-- noted that iran's guardian council amoved the government's 2017 budget and instructed iran's central bank to transfer that $1.7 billion to iran's military establishment, which includes the irgc. according coulded -- according to administration officials, outstanding legal claims against the united states by iran remain, meaning that future payments could be made as a result of any resulting settlement. it is unacceptable for additional u.s. taxpayer dollars to flow into the hands of the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. that is why this amendment is needed. it prohibits funds from being used to pay final judgments awards, compromised settlements or interests in costs specified in the judgments to iran, using amounts appropriated under section 1304 of title 31 united states code, or interest from amounts appropriated under such section. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: to claim time this opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: thank you. this amendment would put the united states in breach of its international legal obligations. it would also lead other countries to question u.s. integrity and reliability in entering into settlements and -- i wish olutions paper would not stick together. in a wide range of treaties that are directly -- that would directly affect our economic international interest. including treaties designed to protect u.s. investors abroad. under the 1981 accords, awards of the iran-u.s. claims tribunal are final and binding. and he forcible in the courts around the country -- and enforceable in the courts around the country. if the u.s. does not pay, iran will attempt to enforce the

awards against u.s. assets around the world. which are significant. even if not successful, iran could tie up u.s. assets in litigation for years. in almost every administration, the united states has entered into settlements with iran, including especially with respect to claims at the iran-u.s. claims tribunal. settling certain cases with iran is key to the u.s.'s ability to avoid far greater liability where we believe the iran-u.s. claims tribunal is likely to award a far larger award against the united states. the u.s. has settled certain cases or parts of cases in the past for this reason. including most recently, the settlement in january involving the iran f.m.s. trust fund. in cases where the administration does not believe we have serious exposure, it

litigates vigorously. in sum, this amendment would put the united states in breach of its international obligation, expose u.s. assets abroad through needless attachment litigation, and remove our ability to assess u.s. litigation risks regarding claims against the united states, and prevent the united states from making important settlement decisions that are in the u.s. taxpayers' interest. for that reason, for that trying not to expose our country to those problems, i urge opposition to the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. zeldin: thank you, mr. speaker. i would ask my colleagues to support this amendment offered by mr. desantis of florida. which has been part of a very effective effort on behalf of mr. desantis advocating for a more effective foreign policy, especially in light of a deal

entered into approximately one year ago with iran that's not in our best interest. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: just for a second, in closing, you just proved to me, the gentleman just proved to me what we already know. and that is that this is about -- feelings about the deal that were raised some time ago. and an attempt to either embarrass the deal, embarrass the people who put it together, embarrass our president, whatever the issue may be. but this one is a dangerous one. because this one exposes the united states to various situations throughout the world. and we should not be caught up in. we have a reputation about paying our debts, about keeping to our treaties, keeping to our arrangements. even with people we may not be crazy about. if that's what the idea is and that's what the deal is, we

should live up to it and this amendment goes against that. so i still owe poles the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time -- oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 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. >> i rise as the designee of the gentleman from florida. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 52 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. zeldin of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. zeldin: thank you, mr. speaker. i present this amendment on behalf of mr. desantis of florida. section 401 of the comprehensive iran sanctions

accountability and divestment act of 2010 rirps the secretary of the treasury to prescribe regulations to prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining in the united states of a correspondent account or payable-through account by a foreign financial institution, that the secretary finds knowingly engages in iran's illicit activities. under section 401-f, the secretary of the treasury may waive these prohibitions or conditions if the secretary determines that such a waiver is necessary to the national interest of the united states. and submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report describing the reasons for the determination. . as noted in a recent congressional service report, section 401 was not waived to implement the joint comprehensive plan of action while many actions -- entities with which transactions would have triggered sanctions were

delisted in accordance with the deal this delisting is unacceptable given that the u.s. department of the treasury claims to be more than aware of the concern that remain regarding iran, such as transparency issues, and regulatory obstacles as reported n a recent "freebie condition" article. this was used to prohibit funds being used to modify regulation this is a prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining in the united states of a correspondent account or payable through account by a foreign financial institution at the -- that the secretary finds knowingly engages in any activity described in section 401-c-2 of the comprehensive iran sanctions and divestment act of 2010. i want to encourage my colleagues in this chamber to support this amendment. i he serve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. reawe -- serrano: i rise in

opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: it's the same thing. i'm repeating myself over and over again, it's redundant. but it's anyway, it's -- it's just the same thing, that we are not happy with the iran deal and want to try to find any way possible to undo it. nd there is enough support all around to at least try, to at least try to reach a new day with the government of iran and to try to find a way to have a better understanding. you know, i'm a big supporter of this situation. people have asked why. simply because i've seen, i've been a member of congress during wartime, i've been alive during wartime, i've been alive during peacetime. both as a member of congress and out of congress.

i'd rather give peace a chance. the iran deal allows for that situation. secondly, the iran deal closed many of the pathways that, i mean, that iran had to building a bomb within a year. and those are still there. the president, trust me, do i nose this for a fact? am i in the room there in the oval office? no. but if there is one item where the president does not want to fail, it's on this one. so there's people looking at this on a daily basis, you know, any chart we come up with, any photograph we come up with, they have it at the white house, i assure you. they're dealing with this on a daily basis. so i understand the gentleman is new york, my colleague, -- has this amendment presenting somebody else and i respect him

for that but i think we should give this an opportunity to work and if it doesn't work, the very people who supported it, i assure you, will be the first ones criticizing it and making sure that it gets undone or is done away with. but this needs a chance to work and it's the best we can do and the responsibility we have to bring peace to future generations. with that, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new york is ecognized. mr. zeldin: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank mr. desantis for bringing this important amendment as we strive to hold iran accountable. there are many other bad activities iran has been involved in directly impacting the united states, our allies in the middle east and around the world. so i do commend the gentleman from florida for bringing this amendment. i would ask all my colleagues to vote for it this evening. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman 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 is now in order to consider amendment number 54 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. yarmuth: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 54 printed in house report 114-639, offered by mr. yarmuth of kentucky. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. yarmuth: i rise to offer an amendment with ms. eshoo, mr. lujan, and mr. welch that will make it easier for the american people to figure out who is trying to influence their votes

through campaign ads. in today's political reality of nonstop campaigning, our system continues to fail the american people by allowing special interests and shah go -- and shadow groups to flood our airwaves with anonymous ads with no true disclosure whatsoever. section 317 of the communications act of 1934 requires broadcasters to disclose the true identity of political ad sponsors on air during the ad. the f.c.c. currently relies on an outdated, 1979 staff interpretation of this law that does not account for the dramatic changes in our campaign system that have taken place other the last six years. this has resulted in a major loophole in which special interests and wealthy donors can anonymously spend limitless sums of money to influence the outcomes of our elections. and to be honest, when an ad disclaimer says paid for americans for kittens and

puppies or paid for by americans for a brighter tomorrow that really doesn't help the american voter understand who may be behind these ads. this is not what congress intended. and despite having the authority to do so, the f.c.c. has yet to take action to close this loophole. in january, 168 members joined ms. eshoo and me in sending a letter to the f.c.c. to unmask secret sponsors of political ads. they have yet to act. and it is my hope that our amendment, which simply states that none of the funds may be used in contravention of section 317, will send a strong message to the f.c.c. that it is time to uphold the original congressional intent. but this is just not congressional intent. it's also the intent of the supreme court. in the widely discussed citizens united decision, something that i certainly don't support, justice kennedy writing for the

majority said, the first amendment protects political speech. and disclosure permits citizens and share holders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. this transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages. he also wrote, there was evidence in the record that independent groups were running election-related advertisements, quote, while hiding behind dubious and misleading names. in the mccutchen decision, which basically said that anybody can give unlimited sums to federal elections, chief justice roberts wrote, disclosure of contributions minimizes the potential for abuse of the campaign finance system. disclosure requirements are in part justified based on a governmental interest and providing the electorate with information about the sources of lection resulted spending.

so what we're hearing here is not just congressional intent but also recognition by the supreme court that disclosure is an important part of guaranteeing transparency in our electoral process. we all know that dark money has flooded our politics, weakened accountability in government and made it harder for voters to develop a true opinion of the individuals they'll send to congress to represent them this amendment will help change that and hopefully restore a minimum level of honesty in our electoral system. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: i've been looking amendment and what it says is none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of section 317 of the communications act.

so this says that you can't do anything against what the law says, i guess that's another way of saying you've got to do what the law says. we call that a double negative. and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. but i guess it's a good opportunity for my good friend to stand up and talk about citizens united, make his points, which i find interesting. and i'm willing to listen some more. but i want to urge my colleagues to vote no on this somewhat senseless amendment that maybe, i don't know, would prevent the f.c.c. from doing its job. but that's my observation. and i respect my good friend a great deal. just curious as to why he filed this amendment other than to talk a little bit about what he's been talking about. with that, i'll reserve my time.

the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: i appreciate the comments of my good friend from florida. i understand that this amendment has no legal impact in terms of forcing the f.c.c. to do what it is statutorily required to do. it is just a prod, it's a way to say to them, we expect you to do your job. we're in the middle of a very, very contentious political season in which hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent anonymously to influence voters' opinions and their votes and we think that it's time for the f.c.c. to act. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which will help ensure that the public knows exactly who is trying to influence their vote during elections and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i hope the f.c.c. got the urge and i would yield back my time as well. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. 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. yarmuth: i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 55 will not be offered. the chair understands that amendment must remember 57 will not be offered. it is now in orer to consider amendment number 58, printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. jenkins: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 58, offered by mr. jenkins of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. jenkins

and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. jenkins: thank you, mr. chairman. one of the most effective tools in fighting the drug crisis is the high intensity drug trafficking areas program. it's also known as hidta. this program works at federal, state, and local levels, bringing together law enforcement to stop drug trafficking in our communities. in my district, the funding is to provide necessary resources to local police departments and county sheriffs' offices to help facilitate efforts to stop drug trafficking. it teams up with local law enforcement with the f.b.i., and the d.e.a. to get drugs off our streets and lock up traffickers. the police chief in my hometown of huntington, west virginia, says hidta is crit tall to the

-- critical to the success of their counterdrug mission. they rely on hidta funding to support training and operational activities. the amendment i offer today is straightforward and completely offset. it will increase funding for the hidta program by $2 million. the increase will go a long way in ensuring our sheriff and police departments can continue making strides in combating the drug crisis. i want to thank chairman crenshaw and the committee for their tireless efforts to fund programs making a difference in our communities. his work on this bill and continued support of hidta are truly making a difference in combating the drug epidemic. mr. chairman, while i've only served on the appropriations committee for two years, it has been a pleasure working with my

colleague from florida, mr. crenshaw. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does anyone wish to oppose the amendment? the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. jenkins: thank you, mr. chairman. again, thanks to the chairmen -- chairman, claireman crenshaw, and i ask support for my amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west 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 is now in order to consider amendment number 68 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gallego: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment 6 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. gallego of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gallegly: mr. chairman, i want -- mr. gallego: mr. chairman, i want to thank first my colleagues, congressman kirkpatrick, takano and aguilar, for helping me with this amendment. we believe our veterans deserve to serve our nation in the federal government. unfortunately a provision slipped under sean -- unseen into this 1,700-page document, the senate defense authorization bill, severely undermines these policies that have been helping veterans get jobs at the federal government. specifically, it will prevent veterans from benefiting from the preference system if they are already employed by the federal government. mr. chairman this misguided amendment was never the subject of a public hearing or debate or a roll call vote and it was never voted on in the committee or on the senate floor.

i am willing to bet the vast majority of my colleagues in the senate do not know that this provision is in the national defense authorization act. america's veterans deserve better. we deserve the chance to proudly and publicly make our case for veterans purposes, a system which has done so much to help courageous americans returning from war find good jobs so they can provide for their families. that's why i'm offering this amendment. i want to give the members of this body the chance to go on record in support of our nation's veterans. mr. chairman, this issue is deeply personal to me. after i got back from iraq, i saw my friends and fellow veterans struggle to find employment and to get on with their lives. i personally witnessed the physical and emotional toll that joblessness can take on a veteran's life and on their families. simply put, the senate language is a step in the wrong direction. after years of painful progress in combating economic distress and homelessness among our veterans, now is not the time to dilute a system that is working, that's been proven highly successful, and

promoting veteran employment. the american people recognize that we owe an immense debt of gratitude to the brave men and women that have served our country. many of them left civilian jobs, left their lives behind for months or even years to risk their lives to defend our nation. the veterans preference system helps create a fair playing field for veterans by compensating them for the time they spent fighting overseas instead of working in government or the private sector. instead of getting masters degrees, veterans were going door to door looking for suttons. our men and women in uniform put time away from their family in dangerous situation -- situations with little monetary compensation. veterans are not asking for a handout. we have earned this preference through the blood, sweat and tears we have given this country. mr. speaker this provision sends the wrong message to our troops. it steabs the wrong policy for our -- it establishes the wrong policy for our government and our country and sets the wrong precedent for our future. i urge every member of this house to support this amendment. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does anyone wish to oppose the amendment? the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gallego: mr. chairman -- mr. serrano: mr. chairman, i'm not against the amendment. can i strike the last word? the chair: yes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. i did not as illustrious military career as he had, but in the 1960's i was proud to serve our country. there's something that troubles me a lot and i have to say it. there's only so much talk about our veterans, our veterans, our veterans. and yet at the same time people cut the veterans hospital administration, at the same time they try to take away preferences that they've gotten and they've earned the hard

way. when we think of veterans we shouldn't think of that picture we always see, only think of that picture we always see of the person in uniform and so on. there's also the veteran in a wheel chair, the young -- wheelchair, it's the young kids that come here and greet us monday nights sometimes, you you know, with a missing limb and so on. to me, i'm either a contradiction or i'm the way a lot of people should be. i will have to be really forced into voting for congress to declare war. given a choice, i don't want n.i.h. any war. but -- i don't want any war. but coming back from that war, i become a big spending liberal when it comes to our veterans. give them whatever they want, give them whatever they need, give them whatever they deserve. i mean that sincerely. is to me is an important amendment that the gentleman brings up.

this to me is one that sticks to our comments that we care about our veterans. if we start chipping away at the benefits of veterans, that they will come when we treat veterans just like any other federal agency and cut away all their benefits and all the support that they need from us. i strongly support this amendment and hope that everybody else will do the same. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gallego: mr. chair, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. gallego: mr. chair, i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 70 printed in house report 114-639.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? mrs. hartzler: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 70 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mrs. hartzler of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentlewoman from missouri, ms. hartler, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from missouri. mrs. hartzler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer an amendment that would limit the cfpb's ability to unilaterally enter into fiscally irresponsible contracts for the purpose of advertising. the cfpb has shown itself to be irresponsible with their spending and politically motivated with their choice of advertising firms. in fiscal year 2016, the cfpb has so far spent $15.3 million on internet ads. which have achieved questionable results. the cfpb is devoting a greater portion of its budget to

advertising than nearly every other federal agency. moreover, nearly all the cfpb's advertising dollars, including a $12.5 million contract signed in february of this year, are going to a single advertising firm, just happened to be used by the presidential campaigns, the president, barack obama, and former secretary of state, hillary clinton. this is wreckless, out-of-control government spending at its worst worst and it wreaks of cronyism. congress must act to rein in this abusive waste of taxpayer funds and stop the agency from throwing away money. we need to end this misuse of tax dollars by passing my amendment. i thank the rules committee for making my amendment in order and i'd like to yield one inute to the chairman. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i want to thank her for bringing this before the body tonight and urge its adoption. this underlying bill talks about the -- what do you call

it? the cfpb? consumer financial protection bureau. we talk a lot about it tonight. one of the things the underlying bill does is put it under the appropriations process. this is a pretty good example of why they ought to be under the appropriations process. most other agencies in the federal government are. they come to congress, they say, this is what we plan our spending on and here's how much we like. but they are not accountable to anybody. so we're just trying to bring some transparency, but this is the classic example of why they ought to be under the appropriations process. if they were walking in to say, we want to spend $15 million of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on advertising, we might ask questions about that. it's a good amendment and i urge its adoption. mrs. hartzler: great. thank you, mr. chairman. i really appreciate your support. i would like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: claim opposition. time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: this is an

ambiguous and punitive amendment which could prevent the bureau from making seniors, service members and students aware of predatory financial practices, interrupt the bureau's ability to work with consumer advocates, and the financial services industry on consumer education, and keep american consumers in the dark about the only agency designed specifically to protect their interests. for every dollar spent on financial education, $25 is spent on financial marketing. you can see that for yourself by searching for a car loan or credit car offer on google or looking through the junk you get in your mailbox every week. in fact, marketing of these products has become so pervasive, google recently banned advertising for payday loans on the basis they were harmful to google's own customers. the bureau has developed a

number of tools that we should be all helping to make americans more aware of. including a great set of resources on home ownership and mortgages called know before you owe. as well as an online tool that arms consumers with the information they need to identify the most competitive -- competively priced loans in the marketplace -- in the marketplace. the bureau has used internet advertising as well as tv advertising through g.s.a.-approved contractors that offer advertising management services to get the word out about these important resources that help consumers plan for their financial futures and save their hard-earned money. while republicans claim to support transparency and competition in markets, they want to shut down the bureau's efforts to education consumers on how to get the best deals on financial services and avoid debt traps.

at the same time republican allies have spent millions of dollars on internet and television for a smear campaign cynically named, protect america's consumers, which has falsified quotes from members of congress and misrepresent their bureau activities to discourage taxpayers from taking advantage of the bureau's services. one analysis found that this bogus group spent $58,000 just on television advertisements, smearing the bureau. what real consumers profits had that kind of money to throw away, not anyone that i know. fortunately none of the republican attacks have been able to keep the bureau from returning $11.4 billion to consumers or from providing financial advice to more than 12 million unique visitors to their website. we would however like to thank the republicans for giving the

bureau some free advertising for those who are watching the debate. make sure you visit your consumer finance for more information on mortgages, student loans, credit cards and banking accounts. nd that's consumerfinance. gove. just in case -- consumerfinance.gov just in case anyone missed it. i urge opposition to the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. serrano: i do. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from missouri is recognized. mrs. hartzler: well, i would just thank the gentleman for giving some free advertising there to the agency and proving my point. that we don't need to spend over $15 million of taxpayer money on this. all these services are available already online. consumers can find out this information. and this is about fiscal responsibility and accountability. we weren't even aware that the

cfpb was spending this amount of money. as the chairman mentioned, there's no accountability for the agency, so congress didn't know until a newspaper article did an investigation on it. that's how we became aware that this agency has spent 2.5% of its budget this year on ads. the second highest level among all federal departments and comparable regulatory agencies for this year to date. so, this is a egregious, there's no account -- this is egregious, there's no accountability, it's not needed. i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from missouri is recognized. mrs. hartzler: thank you, mr. speaker. i encourage all my colleagues to support this commonsense measure to save the taxpayer dollar and to curb irresponsible spending.

more thorough insight and oversight of the cfpb is necessary and i believe this is a step in the right direction. so i thank the speaker for his time. i thank the chairman for his support. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. serrano: i'd like a vote on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from missouri will be postponed. . for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 54 85, directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union directs me to report that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5485 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3766, an act to direct the president to establish guidelines for covered united states foreign assistance programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

the consumer financial protection bureau, the financial stability oversight council and the treasury department is included as are all federal courts. host: what's the total dollar figure on this bill? let's focus on the i.r.s. too.

i understand they're getting or proposed to get less money this time aroundnant 2016 bill. how much less and why is that? guest: yes. the discretionary spend something $21.7 billion which is $1.5 billion less than the fiscal 2016 budget, so it's about a 6% cut. the i.r.s. and the general services administration gets a large part of that cut. the i.r.s. is down about $236 million, to levels not seen since fiscal 2008. which is one of the reasons that the administration is threatening to veto on this bill. host: the i.r.s. has been the subject of a number of oversight hearings. potential threatened impeachment of the i.r.s. commissioner. how many of the amendments deal -- and the policy -- the provisions in the bill deal with the i.r.s.? guest: the committee report itself starts with, i believe, about seven policy riders on the i.r.s. 's emphasizes the committee

irritation with the agency, particularly stretching back to 2013 and the controversy over the i.r.s. allegedly targeting some conservative groups. host: a number of those amendments deal with the commissioner's salary and the bonuses and pay for other executives in the i.r.s. tell us about some of those. guest: representative buck of colorado has -- is putting in an amendment that will be heard either later tonight or probably tomorrow that would reduce, if passed and kept in the bill, would reduce the commissioner's salary to zero dollars until january 20, 2017, basically until the next president gets in. host: outside of the i.r.s. issues, what are some of the other amendments that were policy riders that you're keeping your eye on? guest: maybe the most interesting one is one brought by peter king of new york who would completely cut off funds for any government borrowing. since the treasury department is in this bill, the treasury department does all the

government borrowing, that would put into limbo refreshing the $19 trillion in government debt. there are also nine amendments on the consumer financial protection bureau, some of them reinstating or rolling back some policy riders that are in the bill, some going a little further and prohibiting the bureau from enacting a very controversial payday lending rule. host: another house spending bill for 2017 that the white house appears not to be in favor of. here's the tweet the president's advisors recommend that the president veto the financial services bill. what don't they like about it? guest: a lot of things. probably a dozen different items mentioned in that administration policy. but perhaps it doesn't even matter. this is the 10th year of financial services bill that was in the organization in 2008. it's not even made the president's desk. it's always a controversial

bill. in particular, the white house lists the cut in funding for the i.r.s. to such low levels, strongly opposes that cut. it opposes cuts to the s.e.c. and to the f.c.c. and it doesn't like a number of ideological policy riders having to do with travel to cue bark having to do with abortions in d.c. host: the bill is the financial services spending bill for 2017. our guest is doug. you can follow his reporting on twitter. also at cq.com. thanks for that update. guest: you're welcome. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> the house is in a brief recess. they'll be back about 8:00 p.m. eastern to vote on amendments and then final passage on the financial services spending bill. that bill appropriates $22 billion for a number of agencies, including the i.r.s., the securities and exchange commission, the federal communications commission, and federal courts. so like we said, the house back

at 8:00 p.m. to vote on that legislation. until then, house minority leader nancy pelosi briefing reporters from earlier today. ms. pelosi: good morning, everyone. yesterday i was very proud, the house democrats gathered on the steps of the capitol with 91 survivors and family members wearing orange, representing the 91 people every day are killed in our country by gun violence. that's not a statistic. the an outrage. it's a total outrage. it's a challenge of the conscious of the nation, a call to this congress, to take action. and to end the appalling inaction of gun violence. and gun violence prevention.

on the steps we heard heartbreaking story of gun violence, stories whose power was magnified by the recognition that they were just a small sample of the gun violence tragedies that take place every day. we must do more, we must disarm hate. john lewis, whose historic sit-in two weeks ago, has energized americans tired of congress's relentless obstruction. last wednesday alone, on the one-week anniversary of the sit-in, when we were out of session, we had a national day of action over -- action, over 40 major events across the country. to call attention to gun violence prevention and the two bills that we want a vote on. the overwhelming majority of the american people support action. 90%, no fly, no buy. 85% to expand the background check legislation.

yet republicans are still refusing to give us a vote on commonsense gun violence legislation. instead they're struggling with the bill that once again demonstrates that they are wholey a subsidiary of the national rifle sork. and even at that the unclear that the house majority will even allow any bill to come to the floor. on issue after issue, from our appropriations bills to zika, house republicans have chosen to obstruct meaningful action and resources needed to save lives. for zika, four months, over four months since president obama made his emergency request of $1.9 billion. an investment that will save lives and save money. today we have another challenge. the opioid conference report includes many important authorizing provisions. the democrats and republicans worked together to advance. but it does not include the

funding that is essential to saving lives from opioids. 78 americans, 78 americans die every day of opioid overdoses. we cannot shortchange the resources our communities need to make a difference in the fight against opioid addiction. what would be the point? are they too busy giving tax cuts to their wealthy friends and special interests, that they cannot invest the money that is necessary to make this opioid legislation work? we will not stop fighting for america's families. from a to z. and opioids, prevention, treatment and recovery resources they need to overcome this epidemic. meanwhile, this morning house republicans are boasting that 220 house republicans came together to welcome their standard bearer back to the capitol. republicans today made clear

that we've been saying all along, there's not a dime's worth of difference between donald trump and the house republican majority. trump was simply exposing the radical bigotry and backwardness that we see from house republicans every single day. somebody said, you know very well, again, just starting with guns, as i started my comments, trump and house republicans are completely in line with the national rifle association. on climate change, republicans are in denial, climate change -- trump says climate change is a chinese hoax. and as president he would withdraw from the paris climate accord. on immigration, trump has called for building a wall. steve king says, imagine this, you know what trump -- the language he's used, i don't even like to repeat it, about immigrants. this is what steve king said. for every one who is a valedictorian, there are another 100 out there who weigh

130 pounds and they've got calves of size of can't lopes because they've basketball hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. doesn't that sound so much like trump? his words are worse. but i don't want to repeat them. on muslims, you know what he has said about muslims. peter king said, the chair of the homeland security committee, he said, we have unfortunately too many mosques in this country. this is -- there is -- this is an enemy living among us. lgbt rights, trump joins house republicans endorsing north carolina's hateful bill. the list goes on and on. when people have said, well, i'm not going to support the convention because trump is a nominee, but i'm going to support the house republicans, please. please. actually, the house republicans do trump one better on some of the things that he does. because he's here today, gone tomorrow presidential candidate.

they have power and they have used it on the floor of the house to exclude people of the muslim faith from the united states, to support building walls, denying climate change, and don't even get me started n a woman's right to choose. what could they all be thinking? in any event, the sounds you hear or the silence you hear is the harmony coming out of the republican caucus as they acknowledge their political and philosophical leader, donald trump. any questions? reporter: madam leader, this week the f.b.i. director said, regarding your party's likely nominee, hillary clinton, that she was extremely careless in the handling of highly classified information, that she used an unsecure personal server and that the f.b.i.'s saying there was possible hostile actors that could have

gained access to her server. as a former member of the intelligence committee -- ms. pelosi: i still am. reporter: current member, my apologies. are you comfortable with the actions of secretary he comes from the bush administration with the decision that he will hold. even chairman chick that's has said on him, because we believe all the comey, and government he is a man of integrity and honesty. his finger is on the pulse of this, nothing happens without him and i think it's going to be the definitive person to make the determination or the