mr. labrador, i appreciate that. this is some practical purposes of this particular bill, there i s reason for being there. the oversight board can be running before the lawsuit starts. there is another provision that allows the oversight board to intervene. but without the stay, the time for that would be expired. shortay is a very duration, and that allows parties to seek relief from stay, if there is no stay, it would simply be a race to the courthouse. that is the purpose of having the oversight board in the first place. whether -- whatever the intentions of it, this simply gives the litigation the ability to do nothing more than go into court. and without the ability of organizing before that simply happens. i have to vote no on this particular amendment. i yield back to myself. is there any other discussion on this? if not, we vote on the amendment. all those in favor say aye, those in favor say no, the no's have it. roll call again, go. >> mr. bush of votes no. mr. young votes no. is the public on a votes no -

mr. labrador. >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. >> you're recognized. >> i am not -- i have some troubles with this stay as well as a lot of people do, but for -- but i want to -- i decided to ask my staff to do some research on the constitutionality of the stay. so for purposes of education, i want to just talk about that without taking a position on the amendment. first of all, this alleged taking is not a taking. you can argue about the stay based on whether it's good policy or not, but it's not unconstitutional. it is only a stay on creditor litigation, not a deprivation of substa tiff rights. based on longstanding u.s. supreme court precedent, a moratorium or stay on creditor rights limited in duration and scope, which is what this stay does, would not give rise to a claim to a takings claim. there's a series of cases in the 1920s and 30s where the supreme court has recognized that in response to i financial emergency a government's enactment of legislation temporarily staying creditor

mr. labrador. mr. labrador votes no. miss torres. miss torres votes no. mr. la malfa votes no. miss dingell votes no. mr. denham. mr. gallego. mr. gallego votes no. mr. cook. miss capps. miss capps votes no. mr. westerman votes no. mr. pole polis votes no. mr. clay votes no. mr. newhouse votes no. mr. zinke. mr. zinke votes no. mr. heiss votes no. miss rat wagon votes no. mr. moony. mr. hardy. mr. hardy votes no. mr. lahood. mr. lahood votes no. >> those who have not voted -- mr. gohmert has not been roar recorded. >> mr. cook has not been recorded. mr. cook votes no. mr. costa votes no. >> mr. denham. >> mr. denham votes no. >> it was hard to hear that, i know. >> mr. young votes no. >> mr. yungs votoung votes no. is there anyone else who has not voted or wishes to change? the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on this vote the yeas are 5 and the nays are 33. >> the amendment is not adopted. let's go to mr. -- we're coming down on this thing. i think we've got six more minutes still to go. let's go as quickly as we possibly can. six or seven. mr. macarthur, number 55. you've

mr. labrador? >> mr. chairman, thank you and appreciate this bit of this and because this is my language in this section and i was trying to do exactly what the gentleman from louisiana strong to do, to make sure that the board and the court respected the priorities. i open two, if you want to amend, this is just me speaking, if you want to amend your amendment. if the committee feels that the word comply with is better than respected, i am open to that. i do think the rest of your amendments kind of gets into, we are making a judgment, then we decide who gets the priority instead of letting the courts decide according to what the puerto rico constitution, but if this committee felt that the word comply with as much, that phrase is better than respected, i am open to that minute, dylan which i put in because if there are edwards on always willing to use them. but i'm not open to the rest of the language because i actually think the rest of the language confuses what we're trying to accomplisaccomplish whi

mr. labrador? >> yes. >> ms. or the rice? >> no. >> mr. lamafa? >> no. >> mr. dunham? >> no. >> mr. gug? >> no. >> mr. cook? ms. caps? >> no. >> mr. westerman. >> yes. >> mr. graves? >> no. >> mr. clay? >> no. >> mr. newhawes? >> no. >> mrs. hice? >> yes. >> mr. macarthur? >> no. >> mr. mooney? >> mr. hearty? >> yes. >> mr. lahood? >> yes. >> is there anyone who hasn't voted or wants to change? clerk will report. mr. chairman, on this vote, the 16-23. >> amendment is not agreed to. but -- but, mr. fleming, i would like to still see if we can explore some way going forward on that one. 80, mr. fleming, next ones from here on in are yours so let's go with 80. should say i think we have three more to do. right? they're all mr. fleming's so let's go with number 80. >> okay. >> you're recognized. >> mr. chairman, thank you. azumi staff and i researched this bill and how we got here, it quickly became apparent that something was fishy. you see, puerto rico, like other territories and states, has a balanced budget requirement. yet, they've continued to grow their debt in at an astronomical

mr. labrador from idaho. >> i will yield back one to two minutes from mr. have 1000 questions in a small amount of time, but i wonder if i might synergy dea's project found that millions of dollars in the sales of these synthetics were being funneled back to the middle east for what i assume to be terrorism purposes or funding terrorism. that?u comment more on >> product synergy was a multi-year-multi-agency investigation. hundreds of millions of dollars in proceeds were going back to the middle east. that andue to explore work with our partners at the fbi which is a multiagency coordination center but that operation resulted in the seizure of almost 7000 kilograms cannabinoids. we are still exploring that i would not be able to speak to some of the threats of those investigations on the money. >> one quick follow-up, we know this is not necessarily manufactured here. how is the trafficking handled when it gets to the united states? who does it? synthetic can cannabinoid -- there are several ways. the primary way is manufactured in china. they're exploiting

mr. labrador that he supported 91 in the change of -- in the aspect supplied here changing the word respect to comply with. and therefore we have agreed upon this as a good substitute for my 91. and ask that it -- we make it in order and pass it. > is there further discussion? >> mr. chairman just for clarification purposes are we talking about amendment 91? >> the revised version, which is just the first two lines on age 37 line 22 strikes inspects and puts comply with. >> i rise in opposition. my concern with this language is that it could be interpreted at meaning that you cannot restructure any of the general bligation bonded debt. and as i have stated before, it is one thing to say that we're going to respect priorities and treat bond holders differently depending on the type of securities you are holding and their rights. it's quite in order to say they cannot be part of any restructuring. everybody should be at the table and i anticipate that there will be differences in the treatment to all the bond holders or the classes of bond holders that puerto rico have. so again for the purpo

mr. labrador from idaho for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will yield back one or two minutes to mr. bishop who has a few more questions. >> thank you, congressman labrador. i wonder if -- we got 1,000 questions here in a very small amount of time. i wonder if i might ask mr. milione, the d.e.a.'s project synergy found millions of dollars, sales of these synthetics were being funneled back to the middle east for what i assume to be terrorism purposes or funding terrorism. can you comment on that and share more about that? >> sure. project synergy, it was a multiyear, multiagency investigation and you're right, about millions and millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in proceeds were going back to the middle east. yemen, syria, lebanon. we continue to explore that. we work with our partners at the fbi and our special operations division which is a multiagency coordination center. but that operation resulted in the seizure of almost 7,000 kilograms of cathinones, cannabinoids and hundreds of prosecutions. we are still exploring that and i