tv U.S. House Legislative Business CSPAN May 21, 2015 9:00am-3:01pm EDT
in the same precarious spot as they were before. it is not like the sunni government of saudi arabia and the other ones are deprived of resources. we sold them the best possibly make in this country and we sold them jet fighters. host: senator needs to run. guest: i am not hearing anybody in congress saying that we should commit ground forces and go in and create a larger war for america. the existing plan does not work. we expect that the president will step up and have a plan. the plan he has right now is not working. as members of congress we want be supportive. we also understand that isis is dangerous and they have to be dealt with. if we do not have a foreign policy that allows us to stop it there, they are going to be here and we are going to feel that. a lot of us don't want to wake
up and find out about an attack in which people in america have died. whatever we can do long-term to take care of the problem, we should be doing. we want the president to be successful. we want the president put together a plan. we are opening to listening to what his ideas are. we did not -- the filibuster. we're still looking at that coming up. we will be talk about the regulatory process. finally rain in the regulatory process like 41 states do with the rules review process in place. it lets congress take a second look at the rules before the become effective, not to kill the rule but to get input back to the regulators. we spend almost $1.9 trillion a year complying with federal regulations. compared to $1.4 trillion we put
in income tax. the regulatory environment we have in america today. it is time we do what 41 states have done him a put in a process within congress to review the rules before they become effective. it is time to get it done. host: when will you get to make the speech? guest: we will have a busy couple of days right now. i doubt i will be up the do it before the break. hopefully the first or second week in june we will be able to get her done. host: our c-span 2 yours will be watching you do that. senator mike rounds, appreciate you talking to our viewers. we're going to take a short break. we're going to continue this discussion about the strategy against isis. do you have confidence in the president's strategy?
there are the numbers on your screen. we will be right back. ♪ >> for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother. the he never so vile this day shalt enter -- show gentle his condition. gentle been -- gentlemen shall think themselves accursed that they were not here. >> one drop of blood drawn from that country possible is him -- country's bosom should be the more than streams of fallen gore. >> michael whitmore thoughts about shakespeare and how
politicians quotes from the playwright in their speeches. >> sometimes you have to go with the music of the words. the poetic images, the sound of the rhymes and also the way in which you are able to pause and linger over a long phrase and stop and keep going. i think he is using the rhythms of the language which is something shakespeare did so brilliantly so that he can take english and he can put it into high gear at one moment and he can slow down. that is something shakespeare lets you do if you're a politician. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q and a. >> parting is such sweet sorrow and it really is. >> a few of the book festivals we will be covering the spring on book tv. we will close out may at expo america in new york city where the publishing industry showcases upcoming books.
in the first week in june we are live for the chicago tribune lit fest. our program with lawrence wright and your phone calls. this spring on c-span 2's book tv. >> washington journal continues. host: we are going to spend the next hour of today's "the washington journal" talking about the president's strategy against isis. you have confidence in it? another agent city in iraq falling yesterday. isis taking over areas after they've taken over mosul. the white house says it is just a setback. josh is up first in riverdale, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about the isis strategy? caller: i do not like it.
as involved as it is, we need to be 100% in over there, ground troops marching on isis eradicating that light or staying completely out. we cannot manage our own internal issues, race issues, and over there it is sex. everything goes back thousands of years. it is foolish on our part to think we can go over and force a long-lasting solution. host: if the president said we need to go back into iraq, maybe not put as much -- as many troops as we did before but have more special forces, you would support that idea? caller: well, i don't. i think that is halfhearted.
i think either we need to commit fully -- i'm convincing myself we should just stay completely out of that part of the world. let's bring it back home, not to be an isolationist but we need to protect ourselves. we have the technology. we have intelligence, satellite human intelligence, to be able to take care of ourselves and protect ourselves from further killing on our soil. host: sorry, josh i thought you were done. santos, an independent. caller: good morning. i'm completely not really for troops there. i was in 2003 -- retired from
that one. when you go in war, you're supposed to go right position -- you had the one before where they keep saying there was a cia decision that was given to the president -- that time president bush was not weapons of mass destruction there. given information to vice president and the president. host: we will go to david next, republican. you are on the air. caller: i have a few different things about the strategy. i don't see any strategy from the white house.
i definitely see there is a role that the white house has been playing. all of a sudden a lot of the media does not put out a lot of the information. there is no information about ben ghazi. no information about fast and furious, all of the clinton problems. i think this is a big cover up. not only that what the president has not done anything to support any type of troops in iraq. he is been pulling them out. there is no treaty between anybody. nobody won anything and isis is on the march and we are not doing anything about it. this is not a strategy to let the mall kill themselves. host: the washington post this morning. administration considers its options. security forces gathered outside ramadi for a counterattack
against the islamic state took over the city last weekend. the obama administration debated what it could do to improve their chances to retake the city. the united states has expedited shipment of a thousand additional antitank weapons of a type that is previously been used to great effect by the peshmerga in northern iraq. iraqi prime minister pleaded for more of the missiles during his trip to washington last month. the weapons are expected to arrive in iraq by early june. other possible changes to administration policy, including the use of forward spotters on the ground to assist targeting by u.s. and coalition airstrikes are more problematic. president obama has prohibited any combat role for the 3000 u.s. troops in a train and assist capacity in iraq.
officials have said that includes joint terminal attack controllers who relay real-time information to nearby attack aircraft. although u.s. warplanes have made arming runs near r amadi, their efforts have been hindered by a lack of immediate precision targeting information. u.s. officials have argued they need spotters on the ground. john in greenwood, indiana. caller: bush and cheney got us into this war. they got what they wanted. what we need to do is we need to carpet bomb where the headquarters of isis is and we need to cut off funding by destroying all the oil wells in iraq. that would solve the problem. host: hold on the line because he might be interested in this. the new york times yesterday had a piece about isis funding. it relies on extortion and
taxation. the islamic state takes in more than $1 million per day in extortion and taxation. salaries are taxed up to 50% adding up to at least $300 million last year. companies may have companies -- may have contracts and revenue tax up to 20%. the islamic state has adjusted these rates to make taxation a larger portion of its income. it says that oil is not the main source of cash. the oil infrastructure has been targeted by the united states airstrikes. oil revenue has fallen to $2 million per week. much of the production is used for its own fuel. past sales show the islamic state was already selling oil at the discounts that fluctuated among local markets, selling oil for less in kirkuk been in moz
sul. let's go to chester virginia. good morning. caller: i am not a republican. i do not guess that matters. what matters is that i am an american. we are all americans. we need to concentrate on resolving american problems. right now isis is not our problem. as many people have stated this morning, this is been going on for thousands of years. we need to step out of the way let these people decide,
however, c continue to war, or talk to each other and solve their own problems. we need to find a way that we can step back and allow them to do that. host: peers with senator john mccain, the chairman of the armed services committee said on the senate floor about the president's strategy. [video clip] >> the secretary of state of the united states of america said ramadi was a target of opportunity. have we completely lost? have we completely lost our sense of any moral concern about thousands of people who are murdered? who are made refugees? the secretary of state says that we should not like our hair on fire. the president of the united
states today says, it is climate change we have to worry about. i am worried about climate change. do we give a damn about what is happening in the streets of ramadi? innocent men women and children that are being executed and bodies burned in the street? host: senator john mccain on the floor talking about the situation. isis taking over ramadi. the washington times notes the u.s. has spent more than $400 million to train and equip iraqi forces since returning to the country in late 2014. that is in addition to the $25 billion the u.s. spent during the iraq war to train iraqi soldiers before pulling out of the country in 2011. keith in toledo, ohio. caller: $400 million is a small
number. host: hold on. that is in addition to the 25 million spent before that. -- 25 billion spent before that. caller: what i would like to say , we can look back to when we went to iraq. we have to go forwards. war is a terrible thing. world war ii, where would the united states be if we did not get involved? thousands people are getting massacred. they are trying to turn this into a holy war. we do not want that. i know we are avoiding talking about that but they want -- it is not just isis, there are several dozen extremist islamic groups and they want to join together and join the whole world -- the whole islamic world together. they are taking innocent people -- how are they going to fight them? they have to jump on board.
that's how it goes. we need to crush them with an iron fist. host: wayne in alabama, democrat. good morning. caller: it has been a thought in my mind for a while, since extremism and all these crazy folks are trying to kill everybody for no reason, it starts with an idea. even though it might be a very old idea, it is in the minds of these people. i do not think you can go into a cave or crevice and burn or kill out an idea. one of the things we are missing , we have to do more informational things. in other words, we are not going to be able to -- we're going to need to have a superior idea
implemented and expanded throughout the region for the people to understand that isis is not islam. it is not nearly enough of that. we are concentrating on bombing. i know we have immediate things we have to do but we are spending not enough resources and information so this thing can begin to change. you see in jordan and other places, they start saying that isis was not islam but i am not hearing that -- this thing has to be generated throughout the world. host: here are some comments on twitter.
obama's strategy believed to iran and russia in control of iraq. this is dangerous to the world. i was unaware the president even had a strategy. this cannot bold well for a positive outcome. you can keep dialing in. what is your confidence level in president obama's strategy against isis? we will take more of your phone calls but first i want to show you the headlines in the papers about senator rand paul's remarks on the senate floor yesterday. the new york times, senator uses filibuster to fight data collection. the bulk data collection that has been done by the national security agency ever since congress passed the patriot act. those provisions of the patriot act are expiring june 1. the house passed a bipartisan legislation last week to reform
parts of this bulk data collection but senator rant rand paul held a filibuster, ending 10 and a half hours later protesting this. it is unclear whether or not he has gummed up the works in the senate and whether or not they will be able to go forward. we'll have to wait and see what happens. here is a little bit of what the senator had to say. [video clip] >> i am for spending more money and more time on analyst to investigate and look at the data connected to people of suspicion. i do not want to spend a penny on collecting all the information from all the innocent americans and giving up who we are in the process. we have to fight against terrorism. we have to protect ourselves but if we give up who we are in the process, has it been worth it?
are you really willing to give up your liberty for security? what if the security you're getting is not even real? they said the 52 people they cost -- caught, the president's own privacy group said not one person was captured. a possibility of one but they already had information from some other source. under the executive order, we're still not talking about the patriot act, something nobody knows much about. no common member has been informed of what is going on in this program. there is something called a special procedures governing communications metadata analysis. this is allowing the nsa to use metadata, phone records, who you
call, how long you speak, under the patriot act to create social networks of americans. not only are we collecting your data, because the government says and realizes many of your elected officials are saying that you have no right to privacy and the constitution does not protect your records. they are collecting all of your records, some of the incidental creating in honest databanks and then connecting metadata to other metadata to create networks of who you are. you should be alarmed. you should be in open rebellion saying enough is enough. we are not going to take it anymore. we should be in rebellion saying to our government it is the constitution that protects our freedom and must be obeyed. where is the outrage? i tend to think young people get it.
you see them, their lives revolve around their cell phones. they realize if i want to know about their life, if i collect data from their phone, not the content of phone calls, but the data from their phones, i can know virtually everything about them. host: senator randy paul on the senate floor yesterday. he started in the afternoon and went to about before midnight for yielding the floor. he had help from colleagues. senators ryan, mansion and blumenthal as well as republican senators lee danes and cruz helping him out. the campaign wing of rand paul's office sending out this tweet just added to our store, the filibuster starter pack get yours and show support.
$30 for a t-shirt and a bumper sticker and you signing up on senator rand paul's campaign twitter handle. it is -- we're not sure if this is going to gum up the works for the senate. they're trying to make their way through a trade vote. as well as a highway bill before they leave for the memorial day recess. allen in rochester, message and -- rochester michigan. caller: work in iraq for a few years. he said, you cannot compare the iraqi people to american people. they lack the patriotism that we have. they lack the will power that we have. in other words, those people
they're very corrupt he is telling me. what they gain financially themselves, not for the state of iraq. that is why it is reflecting in there fighting. they really do not want to fight. as a matter of fact, they prefer dictatorship. they could listen to a dictator. he might be the guide they are looking for for some time. host: kathy in kentucky. what do you think? caller: good morning. this man has hit the nail on the head. they are cowards. we have armed them to the teeth with weapons and they ran. i do not understand what is going on with iran militarily backing them or advising them in any way.
my advice is to pull out of their, guard israel and jordan and guard our homeland. host: dave in washington state. good morning. caller: hello. yes. i think saudi arabia, kuwait and some of those oil-rich countries should hire a couple of professional army divisions. soldiers of fortune. i think they could get it wiped up. host: dave in indiana. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. the president is doing as good as he can with the resources he has. we are a broke nation. republican friends willing to pay higher taxes. he cannot do much more. unless they want higher taxes
let it be voted into effect instead of funding liabilities against the nation. host: talking about republicans willing to pay for a larger strategy in this fight against isis. there is going to be discussion about isis and the strategy on capitol hill. the senate armed services committee will be talking about that. go to c-span.org for more details. on newsmakers this weekend we are sitting down with senator johnny isakson, chairman of the veterans committee. he will be our guest talking about veterans' issues heading into memorial day. tune in to c-span on sunday at 10:00 a.m. and six clock p.m. eastern -- and 6:00 p.m. eastern. the usa today editorial board weighing in. just admit it, iraq war was a disastrous mistake.
tens of thousands of americans were wounded and $2 trillion was squandered and a war to destroy weapons of mass distraction -- mass destruction that were never found. with the capture of the city of ramadi, isil is firmly in control of one chunk and iran has great sway over another. republican candidates, reluctant to alan nate -- to alienate hawks have begun to admit it. and notable exercise in blame shifting from president obama -- from president bush to president obama. obama's policies have made it worse but arguing that he should have kept troops in iraq longer, his critics skip over the fact that he pulled out on a schedule
negotiated by bush. usa today's opinion. bill kristol disagrees writing the opposing view saying, we were right to go in in the first place to get a -- to get rid of saddam hussein. we were right to endure over these years and president obama has squandered all of the gains made. maryland in texas, an independent. caller: i don't think we should be sending our finance and equipment over there for this fight. i think they take our stuff and use it against us. they want to do plead that they want to deplete our financial resources and use our equipment against us. a better strategy would be for nike to go in there and sell them tennis shoes that way they can get away faster. host: brad in minnesota. caller: i do not know what they
expect when they elect a community organizer that does not listen to any of his generals. he has been through more secretaries of defense than anyone. what do you expect? we got a smart frat boy that is running our country. host: jimmy in odin texas. what do you think? caller: good morning. these iraq is not fighting. they fought well enough to kill 4500 of our troops. now, 1000 of them cannot defeat 300 isis troops. what is the deal? host: and rachel karcz in michigan -- and rachel in michigan. caller: i'm a lifelong democrat. i believe that our president has
dropped the ball. against isis. host: why is that? caller: t is doing nothing. everyone knows iran is behind all of this. what we need to do, we need to get the people of iran a six-month warning to get out of town. what we can do is nuke iran, send them back to the stone ages where they want to be. host: here's a story in the new york times about the iran nuclear negotiation. the iran leader is ruling out nuclear inspections. ruled out allowing international inspectors as part of any potential deal on its nuclear program. the country would not allow the inspection of military sites. it is widely believed that the iranian supreme leader has the
final say over any deal negotiated by the united states and five other world powers. matthew in tennessee independent. good morning. caller: i like to speak about the iraq situation. before we drew back, we were in debt. we went over and fought that war for those people. they would not fight for themselves. why didn't we sell some of the oil for our debt? i think that should've been done. i think we know it world war is coming. why not face this thing now instead of later? host: that is matthew's opinion in tennessee. we're getting your thoughts on the president's isis strategy. what is your confidence level in it? the city oframadi falling to
isis. another agency falling to the group. -- another city falling to the group. we will keep getting your thoughts for the remainder of today's "the washington journal ." here is usa today, gyrocopter pilot basking in notoriety. the florida man has been indicted on two felonies and four other counts for his flight on his gyrocopter onto capitol grounds. douglas use was indicted -- douglas hughes was indicted yesterday. he was charged with two felonies . he also was indicted on three misdemeanor counts of violating national defense airspace and one count of improperly putting the u.s. postal service logo on his gyrocopter during protest.
he could face of the three years in prison on each of the counts and up to a year on a charge of violating the no-fly zone in washington. mr. hughes will be our guest tomorrow on the washington journal, 8:00 a.m. eastern. ask him about his protest against campaign-finance. he said he did this to draw attention to campaign-finance reform. we will talk to him here and take your phone calls and comments to morrow morning. yesterday on capitol hill, a hearing for the house administration committee with the u.s. capitol police chief. here's what he had to say about the timeline for this gyrocopter landing. [video clip] >> that day i believe at 12:59 hours, we received an e-mail from someone claiming to be a reporter asking questions. we have knowledge of a gyrocopter landing? the information did not provide a time or date or anything like
that. it was more about them argue aware this might be happening and does the person have permission. that e-mail went to our public information officer who sent it to our investigations division. about a minute later we got a call on our command center from the same individual asking generic questions. does someone have a permit to land? did not give a date or time or indicate a landing was imminent. as those things began to be looked into, minutes later the gyrocopter landed. host: chief of police for capitol hill testifying yesterday about the timeline for this landing on the grounds. flying industry did air space. -- flying in restricted
airspace. we will be talking to doug hughes tomorrow on the washington journal. back to your calls about the president's isis strategy. frank, louisiana, independent caller. caller: it is not going to work. i would like to comment. all these guys should be having -- world court should have them indicted for war crimes for the brutality of people. the destruction of these world heritage sites, irreplaceable. i to be protected at all costs. they are destroying the history of western civilization. host: frank referring to paul lmyra, an ancient city in iraq. it recently fell to isis.
a lot of worry about the ark of the antiquities in that area being sold on the black market by isis. scott in tennessee. caller: i retired after 22 years in the military in 2005. the problem is we have career politicians like obama, all of them, that make their decisions based on votes. they are so worried about not standing up for what they believe in, they make decisions on the votes. look at ukraine. we do not hear anything about that, get their are thousands people that are being killed by invading russians. we don't here anything from obama.
until politicians that need to have term limits of eight years and then get out. until they make their decisions based on a backbone instead of the vote, this is a problem we will have continually. host: when did you serve and where did you serve? guest: i served -- caller: i served 22 years in the military. i retired in 2005. floated off the coast of iraq. we did inspections on when saddam was taking oil out of iraq and trying to sell it to other countries without other countries finding out about it. we boarded vessels and did things like that. the politicians are making decisions on votes. just like how many things obama hid until after the 2012
election. host: what do you make of newspapers this morning? lots of discussion but military analysts saying the sunnis have been trained but they don't want to fight because they don't feel included in this baghdad government. caller: what we stepped in, we hit a hornets nest. you can't put the hornets back in the nest. you have such a different culture than what we have. we don't have people that speak the language, we don't have people that know the culture and then we go over and try to take out a dictator, which we did and we lost a lot of lives. which is really sad, but we did not fix the problems. host: john in tyler texas.
good morning to you. caller: i agree with the gentleman that was speaking before me. there are strategies that are common worldwide. i think underestimating obama. make us proud, don't scare us to death. here is -- which of the two nations are more capable -- the soldiers themselves, are they committed? which of the two commanders is more able? which of two armies has the advantages of nature and terrain? which side has the best discipline and rigor?
they have to be disciplined. you can't just slap them on the hand. they have to be disciplined, the soldiers. which of the armies is stronger? which side has the best trained officers? which side administers rewards and punishments? host: i think i heard your point. the atlantic journal-constitution front page yesterday with this headline. iraq is fully we've u.s. battle gear. -- leave u.s. battle gear. they fled the islamic state fighters on sunday. that equipment being left behind according to a pentagon spokesman estimating half a dozen tanks were abandoned.
a similar number of artillery pieces and a larger number of personal carrier vehicles. that is the story in the atlantic journal-constitution. we are talking about your confidence level in the president's strategy against isis. josh earnest took this question from reporters on tuesday. whether or not the president is feeling pressure to change the strategy. [video clip] >> we have seen there are no quick fixes involve. we have seen there have been -- there has been important progress as it relates to this operation against the senior isolate official. there have been setbacks. the isil effort to take over ramadi is a setback and we have been candid about that. i think this illustrates how important it is for us to maintain sums for pet --
maintain some perspective. there was extensive discussion on capitol hill and in the media about the risk proposed by isil on the took over kobani. there were cameras trained from turkey, filming the day by day effort of isil to take over that village. because of the effort of the us-led coalition to coordinate with peshmerga fighters on the ground, isil fighters were driven out of that city and several miles from that city. that is an indication that while we have certain periods of setback, we have days of progress. host: josh earnest saying that what happened in romani is a setback. but the white house has had victory in other places. david ignatius writes, the defeat exposed the tensions that
underlie this war. among the most urgent questions are shiite regular army troops ready to fight and die to protect sunnis or will their lines collapse? if the iranian backed shiite militias are sent to do the job will the sunni population see them as occupation army, setting the stage for a generation of sectarian revenge killing? nora in columbus georgia. what do you think? caller: i have 100% confidence in my president. he did not start this damn war. if anyone needs to come back -- as ours them talking about president obama, bush was dumb as hell but he started a war and could not finish it. i think he should be brought up on war crimes, put before a firing squad and give me a damn
gone and i will show you how to use it. host: let's move on to norm in new mexico. caller: a lifelong republican. i've been trained in college and international security and arms control. the republican administration under george w. bush did make a huge error on purpose in getting us involved in a war we had no business being involved in in the first place. the weapons of mass destruction -- all the reports on that were false. the cia told the administration they did not have nuclear weapons. they might be trying to reconstitute a program for nuclear weapons but they do not have nuclear weapons at this point. cheney came on tv, said they had weapons and said there was a
threat to the united states posed by them and chemical and biological weapons. people in the united states thought the genie was out of the bottle. we had to go in and try to control that situation and it was all a lie. what president obama is dealing with is like an oil spill. it is that blowback from terrible policies pursued under the bush administration. and i am a lifelong republican. host: maggie in new york, an independent. what are your thoughts? caller: my thought for the last two callers, sort of makes my point. there is no common sense involved. you're dealing with an army that wants to die as martyrs. you cannot fight that. people are not seeing the writing on the wall.
people are either so busy trying to make a dollar these days that they can't pay attention or they deliberately hate this country. it is very obvious there is only one thing these people are afraid of and that is pork. host: president obama was at the commencement address for the coast guard yesterday in new london connecticut, telling the coast guard graduates that climate change is an immediate risk to the nation's national security saying it would change how the military operates. and that it is an accelerant of instability around the world. that was the president yesterday. if you missed it, go to c-span.org. wendy in fort lauderdale, florida. caller: i wanted to say i was brought into this philosophy
that it is an idea. i disagree with that. as a woman, from a woman's point of view, these are men and women i guess, mostly men, who decided they want to rape. they enjoy controlling people. just want to rob everybody and extort money and be evil. it is not an idea. we need to crush them with an iron fist and stop worrying about what happened. we know we made mistakes. do what we have to do to stop it. host: that is wendy and floor best in fort lauderdale, florida. we will go to rudy in daytona beach, florida. caller: good morning. i thought obama is doing the right thing. it should not matter whether shia or sunni, they will sell their oil to us, whoever controls the oil.
we will buy oil and they need their customers. getting rid of saddam hussein the reason i believe we had to get rid of him, he was paying suicide bombers, the family like $16,000 to do their thing in israel. the whole thing is about israel anyway. host: what he say that? caller: i'm sorry? host: why do you say that? caller: to protect israel. around the world -- israel is breaking us by using our blood and we had to borrow money to give to israel. they could pay for their own debt. host: why do you say that? give me some evidence that this is all about israel. caller: because it is. host: that is your opinion but you do not have some data to
back that up? the aid to israel, many members of congress have talked about that. about $3 billion a year, on par with what congress gives to other countries. it also gives aid to egypt, and arab country and other countries in that region. wall street journal this morning, cleanup crews are tackling that california oil spill. it has reached an area of about nine miles long. wednesday night, governor jerry brown declared a state of emergency freeze up state funding and resources to help -- which freezees up state funding and resources to help. the epa and transportation department are heading up that investigation. in brooklyn, new york an independent caller. good morning. caller: i have two -- listening
to the last few people, i looked at this carefully and i said this is not the origin of the issue. the origin of the iraqi issue dates far back. i believe i am not want to say mr. bush was good or bad. i will not place that kind of blame. i think it was a real error if it was. believe the real issue here is iran. they are the instigators and insiders and troublemakers. whether it is hezbollah or who it is. syria, -- what we are looking at currently as we are going to have, god for bid, some kind of a treaty.
these crazy people -- giving these crazy people weapons of mass destruction. they are the origins of the trouble in the middle east. israel would love to be at peace with their neighbors. i thank you for listening. host: tell me specifically, when you say that iran is the instigator, give us some examples. caller: they are responsible for trouble, for the bombings in argentina. they are responsible for the proxy wars, whether it is in yemen, syria, they are arming themselves to the teeth. they will not allow you -- they will not let inspectors come in and see if they are doing their nuclear program.
why will they not let inspectors come in and look? they are subversive. they have been sending their boats and stopping our ships. we have a right to be there and worse than ever is the fact that the media does not give us the right to hear the truth. i thank you so much for being willing to listen and accept all kinds of calls from all over the united states. host: we are taking all different opinions on this topic and many more. i want to share with you the front page of the wall street journal. john hills and wrath reporting the fed is looking past june for its first rate hike based on its april policy meeting. the fed had the most explicit terms yet that they are unlikely
to start raising short-term interest rates in june as seemed possible when 2015 began. it could be looking toward september or beyond for a fed rate increase. that, on the front page of the wall street journal. scott in massachusetts, a republican. caller: good morning. i like -- i think a lot of this has to do with obama wanting to run out his term and not give in to any conflicts. he does not want to be a president that starts by war -- start a war or increases troops. i think that is apparent with iran and russia also. that is going i feel. host: john in connecticut, an independent. caller: good morning.
pretty good conversation going on here. a couple of things get my goat especially the so-called republican that is blaming george bush for iraq. i think if we go back and think mainly chemical weapons used by saddam hussein that killed 18,000 kurds. that was a weapon of mass destruction. esther hussein -- mr. hussein said he had weapons of mass distraction. we had an iraqi spy who told the cia a lot of information and that is what we made decisions on. a canadian ballistics engineer built a 300 foot cannon for mr. hussein. the barrel being made in england. thank god they were stopped before it was shipped to him. that barrel was going to be big
enough to throw projectiles specifically chemical or biological. blaming george bush for taking out one of the biggest -- i can't say on television. murdering his own people. a reflection. what we should have done was left him in place, surrounded him so he could not do any more damage and leave him there as a buffer between iran and the rest of the arab world. isis, i am afraid the president dropped the ball. we should have told malachi he is going to act in a responsible way using the sunni as well as the shia. when he started kicking the sunni out, that is where the problem started.
unfortunately, we got the wrong aircraft. we do not leave -- need f-16s. we need the a tank. we need boots on the ground. no one has the guts to do it. i'm afraid it is going to turn into a nasty mess. host: jean in detroit, democrat. caller: i wanted to say that i was against the war in iraq. i felt that, what gave us the right to go in and attack a country which had not done anything to us? i felt that if we went in it would result in death, destruction and chaos. president bush was warned by former president mubarak that if you went into iraq he would not have osama bin laden but 100 osama bin laden's.
i think that has come to pass. saddam hussein was a buffer to iran. they fought wars back and forth. saddam hussein said he had a lot of these weapons as a threat to keep iran from attacking him. going back to israel, we have to remember there were people living in that land, the palestinians. when the united states and the u.n. gave the land to israel, that began a bunch of wars and fighting that has continued to this day. that is my say on it. host: eduardo in the bronx. democrat. good morning. caller: hello. host: eduardo, you have to turn that television down. caller: ok.
i want to make a comment. hello? my comment is, when bush attack iraq, i think that was a big mistake. the war was in afghanistan and what they did was destroyed another country, including more terrorism. not deal with osama bin laden. i forgot which embassy was first. they had osama bin laden about 13 times. clinton did not get the ok to kill them. host: we will leave it there for now. that does it for today's "the washington journal." the house is about to gavel in so we will bring you there now.
live coverage of the house on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., may 21 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable garret graves to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray.
we give you thanks, god of the universe, for giving us another day. as the various members of this people's house return to their home districts, we ask your blessing upon each. give each a discerning ear and the wisdom and good judgment needed to give credit to the office they have been honored by their constituents to fill. bless the work of all who serve in their various capacities here in the united states capitol. bless all those who visit the capitol today, be they american citizens or visitors to our nation. may they be inspired by this monument noble idea of human freedom and its guarantee by the democratic experiment that is the united states. and as we take time this weekend to remember those who have died serving our country
god bless america and may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: 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 illinois, mr. dold. mr. dold: will everyone join me including members in the gallery? 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 pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the
senate on may 21 2015, at 9:39 a.m. that the senate agreed to without amendment house concurrent resolution 47. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, on memorial day americans will remember and honor those who have served this nation to protect and defend the freedoms we cherish. as we reflect on the heroism and devotion of the brave service members who have given their lives in defense of our nation, we must never forget to thank and praise their families. let us take the appreciation the sacrifice of america's heroes. i especially appreciate memorial day. my father served our country as part of the flying tigers in india and china during world
war ii which inspired my military service as well as the service of my four sons who all currently are on military duty. this weekend i am thankful for the opportunity to join county councilman ronnie young in the aiken memorial day parade and reinstate the parade as well as wes and betsy for their work to honor our armed forces and their families. in conclusion god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, press reports this week show that the rain of terror brought by boko haram in northern nigeria has reached appalling new depth of deprafity.
they have chosen to use as a weapon of war widespread organized sexual violence against young girls and women. hundreds of women and girls as young as 11 have been subjected to systematic organized rape. the terrorists have also used women and children to carry out suicide bombings against civilian targets. these are crimes against her humanity which is why i'm pleased to join congresswoman barbara lee in support of an international criminal court investigation. i am also pleased that the house approved an amendment that representative ed royce and i offered to the national defense authorization act that calls for continued u.s. support of international efforts to combat boko haram. history has taught us to our ever-lasting sorrow that when such horror arrives in the world the world cannot and
should not stand idly by. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois mr. dold, is one for one minute. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize rabbi carl watt kin, he's retiring after 35 years of service. he will be sorely missed by many in our community. he served as the president of the north brook clergy association, the chicago region of rabiniccal asimplely and also a member of the jewish united fund board. in these roles, mr. speaker, he's worked tirelessly to support his fellow rabbis and making their congregations centers for worship and learning. in 2004, rabbi watkin was part of the group of graduates of the shalom heartland institute
in jerusalem. he's been a tremendous asset to the jewish community at large as has his wife judy, by her teaching at the day school for many years. i wish rabbi wakin well on his retirement and the next chapter of his life. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? wowed, the gentleman is recognized -- without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: no matter where you stand on the trans-pacific partnership, the export-import bank is one trade program we should all get behind. after all, this is a federal agency that operates at no cost to taxpayers and whose sole purpose is to create jobs by helping american manufacturers increase exports. the export-import bank provides loans to help american businesses compete against foreign companies that receive subsidies from their government. it provides credit to facilitate the sale of american
goods abroad. since 2009, the export-import bank has helped dozens of businesses in western new york export nearly $100 million in goods, has helped create or sustain 1.3 million jobs across this nation. a number of local business leaders, including barry banks, the owner of midland machinery, have reached out to my office to share their stories of success with the bank and to warn against its expiration. i urge the majority to stand with american businesses, protect american jobs and re-authorize the export-import bank. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to rooks my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. walters: mr. speaker, as we approach memorial day, i wish to recognize our service members who have so bravely answered the call to defend our great nation. as the daughter of a u.s. marine i'm eternally grateful for the service and sacrifice
our troops make all in the name of freedom. today i wish to pay a special tribute to a hero that i have the honor of representing in congress, corporal fred whitaker sr. corporal whitaker, a world war ii veteran, proudly served our nation in combat infantry from 1943 to 1946. he participated in several campaigns, including sar rhineland, central europe and the historic battle of the bulge. corporal whitaker received numeral medals, including the distinguished unit citation, the bronze star, the purple heart, the good conduct medal the european theater medal with four battle stars and a world war ii victory medal. i thank him for his sacrifice to our nation and for the sacrifice all military personnel make to keep our country safe and free. we are forever indebted to this true hero of the greatest generation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, this morning i ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting h.res. 92, commemorating the 50th anniversary of project head start, launched in the white house rose garden on may 18, 1965, as a bold and audacious in its scope and design and as a project to launch against those who lived in poverty. president johnson said we set out to make and to contain certain that poverty's children would not be forever poverty's captains. this means that nearly half of the preschoolchildren of poverty will get a head start on their future. these children will receive preschool training, prepare them for regular school in september. they will get medical and dental attention that they badly need and parents will receive counseling.
again, we set out to make certain that poverty's children would not be forevermore poverty's captives. today 160,000 enrolled in early head start 910,000 enrolled in head start 10,000 native indian -- 32,000 of migrant, seasonal workers and 40,000 homeless children. we must continue this infrastructure and i want to thank the harris county school board in my district because they believe in helping children. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i conclude by thanking those who have fallen in battle for the united states of america as we memorialize them on memorial day. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to congratulate my constituent, mr. steven j. boner of the united states air force who got the congressional gold medal as an american fighter pilot with the flying
tiger squadron in world war ii. mr. davis: during world war i, major boner had always dreamt of becoming an ace. when he graduated from flight school in 1943, his dream came true when he was assigned to fly with the 76th fighter squadron in china, battling japanese fighter pilots in his p-40 war hawk. during his time with the air force major boner became a member of the american fighter aces who have been renowned as our country's most distinguished fighter pilots. in both world wars, along with the korean war and the vietnam war, these individuals have not only courageously defended our nation but have also made outstanding achievements in air yalt combat. major boner, now 96, lives with his daughter jane, just outside carlinville in my district in central illinois. i'm proud to congratulate major boner for his outstanding accomplishments, as an american fighter ace. the bravery and dedication he displayed as a pilot in world war ii make him a very
deserving recipient of the congressional gold medal award and i'm proud and thankful to have such brave veterans like him in my district. congratulations, mr. boner. i yield back. -- mr. bonner. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman recognize? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kelly: today, study after study shows that children from lower income families face unique, social, emotional and financial challenges that leads them to start school already behind their peers. we began addressing this problem in 1965 when president lyndon johnson established the head start program. 50 years later, over 30 million of our most vulnerable children have benefited from head start in a more level playing field. there are 48 head start programs across the state. these programs not only provide
opportunities for more than 40,000 illinois children and their families each year, but they also give tens of thousands of passionate educators the chance to give our most needy children a shot at success. this week as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of head start, i urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of this vital program. i look forward to ensuring that all children can have an equal opportunity to succeed and i want to salute our troops, our veterans and those that gave their lives as we move into memorial day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> well, mr. speaker while it may feel like a case of deja vu, the sad fact of the matter is we're once again talking about real problems at the i.r.s. mr. paulsen: 1,600 i.r.s. agents in the 10-year period did not pay their taxes. while it's bad enough to think
that those collecting our taxes can't pay their own, what is worse is the majority of these employees were given reduced penalties instead of facing the full consequences of their actions. a number of these employees even received promotions and bonuses. mr. speaker taxpayers deserve better than a government agency that can't seem to follow the rules. and hardworking americans should be treated with more respect. it's time for more oversight and more transparency at this agency and holding employees accountability that break the rules and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . ms. lee: i rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of head start which president johnson announced may 18, 1965. head start is our nation's commitment that every child, regardless of their zip code, has an opportunity to succeed. since its creation, head start has prepared more than 30 million children for success in the classroom and beyond.
my former district director, a brilliant african-american man, was a head start graduate. his story and millions of others demonstrate just how important early childhood education programs are. yet nearly 57,000 children across the country have lost access because of draconian see quester cuts. and the 2016 republican budget makes it worse by removing another 35,000 children from the program, including 4,500 from my home state of california. our children deserve better. how in the world would they compete with children throughout the world if we deny them an early start? mr. speaker, we know that high quality, early childhood education is one of the best investments we can make. on the 5th anniversary of head start, i urge -- 50th anniversary of head start i urge my colleagues to fully support this critical program and leave no child behind. i, too, want to commemorate and remember my dad a veteran who served in two world wars -- in two wars. also i want to commemorate and
thank our veterans, our young men and women on duty and those who have paid a very serious price on behalf of this country. thank you again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> 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. 2262. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 273 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2262. the chair appoints the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves, to preside over the committee of the whole.
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2262, which the clerk will report by title. the chair: a bill to facilitate a progrowth environment for the developing commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and creating more stable and predictable regulatory conditions, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy, and the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, will control -- eave will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mccarthy: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: when i was a child, i learned that there was more to our universe than just my home and my town. there were people in great cities. there were buildings that stretched the clouds. there were machines that could explore the character of atoms
and telescopes. there is so much in the world and in recent decades we have grown accustomed to seeing it all. entire continents and countries are plain right away. the internet is a window to the world from the comfort of our homes. in this time of innovation, what was once unimaginable is now common. what was once distant now feels so close. but we all know there is still so much left to learn. in my heart i believe man's journey of exploration and discovery has barely begun. for generations dating back to the dawn of humankind, every man, woman, and child has looked up to the stars and wondered. we imagine that the dots of life could reveal a glimpse of the future, and we thought that each night we saw the whole heavens stretching above us. but as technology has given us new eyes to see the universe, we discover that even on the
clearest of nights we can only see a fraction of the stars in one small section of the galaxy. i still look up at the stars with wonder. and i know that we are only at the start of our mission into this greater frontier. you see, i spent time in school just like every kid in america learning about our first voyages into space and the moon landing. i remember how much pride i felt knowing that america did it first and that our flags flag still flies up there today. but that is not where we are meant to stop. america has always led because it's in our nature to lead. we crossed over the mountains of the appalachians and into the great plains. we climbed the rockies to the golden coast of california and beyond. creating a nation and a land that has far surpassed all the truths, hope, and liberty. we are a beacon of freedom and human dignity. to every person that longs for the right to choose their own future. and we are a force for good
unlike anything this world has ever known. and yet in space we are losing our ability to lead. we once stood up to the challenge of the soviet sputnik and made it to the moon. but today our astronauts use russian rockets. and other nations are working to put people on mars and beyond. but we must go beyond. we must face the great unknown with that american spirit of adventure and hope. to paraphrase president kennedy we must lead mankind into space not because it is easy but because it is hard. and because that goal brings out the very best of our nation. there are people, scientists engineers astronauts, and entrepreneurs out in the deserts of california who have a goal. the same goal so many americans have had before them. it was our forefathers' goal at the founding of this nation conceived in liberty that it was our goal when two young bicycle
repairmen rose to the stands and waves of north carolina beach to fly. it was our goal when chuck yeager raced through the skies over california and broke the sound barrier. that goal is to make our dreams a reality. today these 21st century explorers in california and across the nation, want to bring man above the clouds, above the earth, and above the moon itself. and we should let them. government has great power, that is true. but in america, we believe that power is limited. it cannot, should not, and will not be used to diminish our dreams. i stand here before you today, mr. chairman presenting a bill. this bill asks us to make a decision. do we concede our future to one of managed decline where others lead? or do we make a future where america and her people guide us in our journey to the stars? i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from maryland is
recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in opposition to h.r. 2262, the space act of 2015. and i'm actually quite saddened by that. it's not the outcome i hoped for. like the gentleman from california, i share in the enthusiasm and wonder of space. i would note that the commerce, justice, state appropriations committee has just cut $230 million from our -- the president's request for these activities. it was my sincere belief that the science space, and technology committee could have reached bipartisan agreement on a commercial space bill. indeed, during the past few weeks there was a concerted attempt on both sides of the committee to reach common ground on tackling these issues and developing a bipartisan bill.
however, with the backdrop of meeting the floor majority's schedule as the top priority there was insufficient time given to negotiate a compromise before last week's full committee markup. mr. chairman, i think most of us on both sides of the aisle share in the excitement and enthusiasm about the commercial space industry. and we want it to succeed. indeed, hundreds of millions of dollars have been paid by taxpayers into this industry to get it off the ground. american taxpayers have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the success of commerce -- commercial space. since the very beginning the federal government has supported the private space industry at both the state and federal level with funding, data, and guidance with best practices. since the commercial space launch act was passed in 1984 followed by the commercial space launch act amendment in 1988 and 2004 it's clear that the
commercial space industry has made significant strides. even in 2004, few would have predicted that nasa would be relying today on a commercial space transportation to deliver critical supplies, spare parts, and research material to the international space station. who knows what developments will occur in the commercial space arena in the coming years. what we do know is that it won't be commercial cargo transport -- just commercial cargo transport in fact it will also be people. that is why it is up to congress to develop commercial space policies that both encourage the commercial space industry and protect those who participate as the users of industry services and activities. sadly this bill just doesn't measure up to that responsibility. instead, it takes a fundamentally unbalanced approach to the issues facing the commercial space launch
industry. two key areas should concern all members, republicans and democrats alike. the first area pertains to safety. a moratorium on the f.a.a.'s authority to regulate the safety of crew and space flight participants was initially included in the commercial space launch act amendments of 2004. in order to allow the commercial space industry the time to acquire experience and data that would inform the development of safety regulations. however initial expectations of industry progress simply were not realized. so in 2012 congress extended the moratorium for three more years as part of the f.a.a. modernization and reform act of 2012. the end of that learning period is set to expire on september 30 2015. h.r. 2262, the bill in front of us would indeed extend the learning period to december,
2025 a decade-long moratorium on f.a.a.'s ability to even start proposing a safetywork -- safety framework. very dangerous. it's an unprecedented regulation free period for a decade for the commercial human space flight industry and puts no pressure on the industry to establish industry consensus standards. standards that could potentially be used as self-regulation measures for the industry. in addition to providing the industry with 10 years with no safety regulations, h.r. 2262 negatively effects the rights of individuals on important safety matters by requiring space flight passengers to waive liability against launch providers and other parties. what that means is that space flight participants have to waive their rights to sue the launch provider and related parties for claims even if there
is negligence involved. mr. speaker, h.r. 2262 puts policy in place that favors industry over policy that ensures balanced consideration for those people the industry will serve. that is a position that i and all of my democratic colleagues on the committee oppose. another area of concern pertains to resource utilization such as asteroid mining. mr. speaker, there is merit to positioning ourself to answer questions associated with space mining. the property rights that accrue from such activities. and the harmonization of our preety obligations. establishing perspective policies at h.r. 2262 would do is premature. to preclude the proverbial placement of the cart before the horse, it would be prudent to establish an interagency review to help identify appropriate roles and responsibilities and a proposed organizational structure for the federal
government oversight and lansing of commercial space resource exploration and utilization. and it would also be prudent, mr. chair to hold hearings on these issues and on this legislation as well as to have a subcommittee markup. what we sometimes refer to as regular order. h.r. 2262 skips these steps. proponents of the space resource utilization provisions in h.r. 2262 argue that the range of issues has been adequately vetted and reviewed by the executive branch. it is my understanding that while several individuals in the executive branch have offered technical drafting comments in response to queries about the bill, no federal agency has taken a position on the bill. indeed, the administration says, and i quote, while the administration strongly supports the bill's efforts to facilitate innovative new space activities by u.s. companies such commercial -- such as the
commercial exploration and utilization of space resources to meet national needs the administration is concerned about the ability of u.s. companies to move forward with these initiatives absent additional authority to ensure continuing supervision of these initiatives by the u.s. government as required by the outer space treaty, end quote. . we've received a number of letters from scholars interest groups and attorneys who raised concerns over or are opposed to h.r. 2262, as written. i'm submitting for the record letters from professor jo ann gribiniwitz director of the space law center, the american association for justice, the center for justice and democracy, consumer watchdog, the national consumers league, the network of environmental and economic responsibility of the united church of christ protect all children's
environment and public citizen. in closing, mr. chairman, h.r. 2262 is an unbalanced bill that simply doesn't adequately protect the public's interest. whether in matters pertaining to the safety of the general public or in matters pertaining to the safety of the future consumers and customers of the industry. it incorporates printive provisions on the space resource utilization that are indeed premature. i urge my fellow members to oppose h.r. 2262, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mccarthy: mr. chairman, this bill that comes before us today took some time in drafting. over four hearings in a bipartisan manner, this committee reached out to the minority in october of last year, gave them a draft of the bill. unfortunately, mr. chairman the minority party did not come back for five months, but we
wanted to make clear that everybody understood the bill. we also wanted to make clear that people didn't make misstatements because in this bill the section provides f.a.a.'s ability to regulate commercial human space flight in order to protect the unininvolved public, national security, public health and safety safety of property and foreign policy. it preserves f.a.a.'s ability to regulate space flight participant and crew safety as a result of an accident or unplanned event. mr. chairman the man who has led this committee in a bipartisan manner, mr. chairman, i want to yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas chairman smith. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman i thank the gentleman from california for yielding and our thanks go to majority leader kevin mccarthy for introducing such an important piece of legislation. in fact, we have made him an honorary member of the science, space and technology committee. mr. chairman, space commercialization, this bill is
the future of space. this bill will encourage the private sector to build rockets , to take risk and to shoot for the heavens. h.r. 2262, the spurring private aerospace competitiveness and entrepreneurship act of 2015, or space act, facilitates a pro-growth environment for the developing commercial space sector. it creates more stable regulatory conditions and improves safety, which in turn attracts private investment. members of congress should know earlier this week the administration officially stated, and in the most important thing, in my view, that the administration said and it was unfortunately omitted from the statement a while ago that the ranking member quoted. here's what the administration said. it does not oppose house passage of this bill. the space act secures american leadership in space and fosters the development of advanced space technologies. the space act has the ability
to regulate commercial human space flight in order to protect the national security and public health and safety. and the f.a.a.'s ability to regulate space flight participation and crew safety in the event of an accident. the bill calls for a progress report on the knowledge and the industry f.a.a. have gained about the operation and licensing of commercial human space flight. this allows the commercial space industry to develop standards and coordinate with the f.a.a. so the industry can grow in a stable regulatory environment and without the threat of arbitrary regulationes that would adversely impact their ability to innovate. international law places liability for damages that result from space accidents on the launching nation. all space bearing nation requires some third-party liability insurance for launching entities. the current u.s. risk sharing structure expires in 2016. this act extends
indemnification until 2025 and calculates the maximum probable law. this is subject to future appropriations. this provision will prevent u.s. space companies from going overseas where other nations have more favorable liability protection. the space act also closes a statutory loophole that negates an experimental permit once a launch license is issued for the same vehicle design. this fosters greater innovation and allows an experimental permit holder to continue testing while a license holder conducts operations. current law only allows for two categories of individuals carried within a spacecraft, crew and space flight participants. now that nasa is allowing our astronauts access to the international space station, a new category is necessary to outline the roles, responsibilities and protections for astronauts on a commercial human space flight launch. this bill also closes a loophole that carved out an exception for space flies
participants from indemnification coverage. by including them, space flight participants who may participate in a launch for a contest or for other reasons are not burdened with financial exposure above the limits. this bill also ensures that federal courts review lawsuits that result from accidents since the federal government is ultimately the responsible party, not the states. current law requires that all parties involved in a launch waive claims against each other. this bill adds space flight participants to the cross-waiver requirement to ensure consistency and reinforce the informed consent requirements. all space community stakeholders have expressed support for this bill. they include blue origin, virgin galactic, space x -- can i ask the majority leader one more minute? mr. mccarthy: i yield the gentleman one more minute. mr. smith: the stakeholders who have expressed support is
virgin galactic, space x, the national space society and the commercial space flight federation which represent morse than 50 commercial space companies across the united states. the bill also includes many bipartisan provisions recently considered by the science -- by the science committee. the bill is a product of over three years of work, numerous committee hearings and input from industry, education groups and grass root citizen advocacy groups. virtually every stakeholder group again, has supported this bill. h.r. 2262 will keep america at the forefront of aerospace technology, promote american jobs, reduce red tape, promote safety and inspire the next generation of explorers. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and once again thank the majority leader for introducing it and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would note before yielding to the ranking member that it should be no surprise that the
entire commercial space industry is supporting the majority bill because it is incredibly generous to the industry without due consideration to the safety of the public and to space flight passengers who also might travel on their vehicle. so it's not a surprise. i think all of us here want to see the support of the commercial space industry. we want a regulatory environment that respects their innovation but also protects united states taxpayers' interests. as i said taxpayers have to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of our skin in the game. it is up to us to act responsibly and with that i would yield to the ranking member, ms. johnson such time as she may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized.
ms. johnson: thank you, mr. chair. i rise in opposition to h.r. 2262 the space act of 2015. this bill amends the commercial space launch act which is one of the seminole achievements of this committee. that act opened the doors to establishment of the commercial space industry which is poised to become a major part of the 21st century economy. i agree that both our committee and the congress as a whole need to address commercial space launch act. we haven't comprehensively addressed these issues since 2004, and i also want to be clear that i am a strong supporter of commercial space industry. i think members on both sides of the aisle want this industry to succeed because this is good for our nation. however, the issues being dealt with in this bill are not
straightforward. they are complex and require thoughtful consideration. unfortunately the committee on science, space and technology haven't given these issues thoughtful consideration. we have not held any hearings so far this congress to examine the issues being debated today. we also haven't had a subcommittee markup to try to work through some of the underlying issues in the legislation. that's really very unfortunate because we could be considering a bipartisan piece of legislation today if the majority had simply laid the proper groundwork for moving complex legislation. instead, we have rushed this bill to the floor to meet some arbitrary timetable established by somebody, perhaps the republican leadership. so what does this bill do? in every possible measure, h.r. 2262 gives maximum preference to the priorities of the commercial space plauverage industry at the expense --
launch industry at the expense and the safety of the public. and it does so at the expense of the american taxpayers. this bill proposes to provide the commercial space launch industry with another decade -- decade of regulation-free operations with respect to protecting the safety of space flight passengers. there won't be any passengers when they find out they have no protection. some will state that industry does not yet have enough experience to establish these regulations. that's rubbish. both the united states and russia have been launching humans into space for more than five decades. there's been literally hundreds of space launches on numerous different types of spacecraft during this time. the f.a.a. has had more than enough data to rely on to set some commonsense regulations on space flight passenger safety. in addition, this bill also
provides a lengthy nine-year extension of commercial space launch indemnification provisions. congress has extended these provisions many times since they were originally crafted in 1988. since 1988, the liability exposure of the u.s. government under this regime has grown each and every year. what began as an approximately $1 billion backup of the industry has now grown to more than $2.5 billion, and this will continue to grow for nine more years under this bill. i think this is something that deserves a little more attention. generally as an industry matures, you would think their reliance on the u.s. government for subsidies would decrease rather than increase. finally, this bill takes steps into the unchartered waters involving space property rights. i'm not against asteroid mining or space resource utilization.
those activities will come in time. however, i am for getting any legislation that addresses these areas right. we are not at all close to resolving the many unanswered questions and issues concerning space resource utilization and property rights. at the single hearing, the majority held on this topic last congress, several of the invited witnesses expressed their view that there were many unsettled issues with the majority's draft legislation. moving this legislation without really ever addressing these issues is i believe negligence on the part of the congress. some on the other side of the aisle may point to the fact that the administration statement of administration policy did not include a veto threat against this bill, but i would note that the administration's statement also had serious concerns about sections of the bill and notably did not endorse the
bill. with respect to the asteroid mining provisions, the statement noted, and i quote the administration is concerned about the ability of u.s. companies to move forward where these initiatives absent additional authority to ensure continuing supervision of these initiatives by the u.s. government as required by the outer space treaty. ms. edwards will be offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute that i will speak one more time later. it may not have everything that we desire. it may not reflect all of our priorities for commercial space launch policy, but it is a clear route to getting a balanced, bipartisan, bicameral commercial space launch bill enacted into law. because ultimately that is what we are trying to do is get a bicameral agreement. we can argue over differences
or we can just join together to pass bipartisan bicameral commercial space legislation. i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 2262 in its present form and instead take a bipartisan approach to enact commercial space launch legislation. i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas yields back. the gentlewoman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mccarthy: yeah, mr. chairman, before i yield i do want it noted, 1969, what all america felt when they watched an american take a step on the moon. an american rocket, american ingenuity. unfortunately today, we pay russia for an astronaut from america to ride on their rockets. . some may be could be tent with that, but i am not. that's why this bill today allows us to have some change in growth to make that happen. mr. chairman, i yield three
minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. hultgren: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to take a moment to thank the sponsor of this bill majority leader mccarthy, for this great work. this is very important. i want to thank our great chairman, lamar smith, who has had an unprecedented week in the house of representatives of passing bills of innovation, advancing science, and congratulations to him as well. the space industry represents hundreds of billions of dollars in economic investment and thousands of jobs across the united states. but it's not just large companies. cane tubular, a small multigenerational family-owned business in my district is doing the innovative work necessary for safe, weld free condensing coils for the next generation of rocket engines. scott forge is another business working on an amazing employee ownership model that is forging the heavy metal parts and casing for multiple launch systems throughout the supply chain. the space industry is an engine
of economic growth throughout the country, and our ability to do this right is vitally necessary to maintain american competitiveness as other nations begin to catch up. this is why i rise today to urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2262, the spurring private aerospace competitiveness and entrepreneurship act of 2015. the space act facilitates a progrowth environment for the commercial space sector. it fosters a safety framework that will protect the american public while encouraging the development of new space technologies. this will ensure america's exceptional role is maintained as the most innovative nation in the world. this legislation also extends to the current risk sharing structure set to expire next year and requires an update on how the f.a.a. calculates maximum probable loss associated with potential space flight accidents. this ensures that the u.s. space companies won't be forced to go overseas to compete. the space act also establishes a
legal framework for government property rights of resources obtained from asteroids giving u.s. companies the legal assurance they need to invest in and develop in space resource exploration and utilization technologies. the successful exploration and use of asteroid resources is an important step in humanities' development and in the national interest of the united states. the space act helps develop the commercial space industry, ensures commercial space lawsuits are treated fairly, and allows the commercial space industry to grow like never before. for these reasons i strongly recommend my colleagues support commercial space with a vote for the space act of 2015. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: may i inquire how much time each side has remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman from maryland has 14 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 17 minutes remaining.
ms. edwards: thank you. mr. chairman, i just want to for the record because i think it's important for the american people, that we don't mix apples and/or rangs. -- and oranges. the bush administration actually canceled the program that would have enabled us to make sure that we have american rockets vehicles going to the space station. and in the interim period those requests have been severely underfunded. so i think it's important for us to put into perspective what is happening in the space industry. i, as somebody who long ago worked in the industry, worked at nasa, understand the importance of investing in science and research and funding the activities of nasa and supporting the industry, i also understand that we have put this congress in fact, has placed burdens on the -- both on the industry and on the agency to perform without putting the
money to do that. i would note that this space act doesn't have any money that goes with it. in fact, on the appropriations side, as i stated earlier, $230 million has actually been cut from the president's request. so with that i will yield just one minute to my colleague, the ranking member from texas. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. johnson: i simply wanted to respond to the statement that we have to rely on russia. we are relying on russia because we won't pay for it in this country. but we are willing to allow a private commercial space vehicle to fly at the expense of the government and the risk of every person who would hire a trip. we are paying them to take supplies to the space station because we refuse to fund space
station flight or human flight from this country. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mccarthy: mr. chairman, today we pay russia $70 million for one astronaut to go to the international space station. as commercial space begins to grow we watched others get into the market. space x said they could do it for much less. that's what this bill talks about. allowing the commercial space others, to join in. i don't think all the answers come from washington. i think government should be limited, but we should not limit our ability to grow. why should we complain if we don't even -- if we can use private sector money to even increase our capabilities to go higher into space? now, mr. chairman, the next person i'm going to yield to knows a great deal about this, he represents aerospace corridor, he comes from a family that's renowned in the development of space in america. mr. chairman, i yield two
minutes to the gentleman from california the son of mr. pete knight who is the -- still holds the record for the fastest man on earth in an x-15. congressman, mr. knight. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. knight is recognized. mr. knight: i want to thank the majority leader for bringing this forward. this is a vital piece of legislation. i want to thank the chair. the majority leader brings up a subject that's always very important to me. it happened in -- december 17, 1903. it happened in a little bicycle shop in dayton, ohio. two innovators took their invention across part of the country out to a little place in north carolina kitty hawk, and they flew a manned powered controllable aircraft for the first time. now, why is that important? because the government had thrown a $50,000 grant to get this done. and they couldn't get it done. but two innovators could get it
done. by nothing other than the brains that they had, the energy, and their two hands. america needs to ensure that it will continue to be the leader in space industry. business and innovation want stability, and this bill does just that by extending the f.a.a. learning period and duration of indemnification to 10 years. when i speak to fifth graders and i think we all do, at least a couple times a year, i try to speak to at least 50 schools a year. when i talk to the fifth graders i ask them how long it takes to fly from l.a. to tokyo. and there is always a two hour, 20 hour, anything like that. i tell them, it takes about 10 1/2 hours. i said, but in your lifetime it's going to take about an hour and a half. and they said that's great. that's great. i would love to be in an airplane for just an hour and a half for a spacecraft when today we have to do 10 1/2 hours. you know what? that will happen if we let it happen. right now it's happening.
innovation is flourishing. these things are happening. we are doing jousting programs that's disbursing the supersonic wave. we should be able to fly over the continent at more than mack -- mach one. i know all of us californians would love to do the hour and a half instead of the 5 1/2 it takes today just like it took in 1970. this bill allows the f.a.a. to father sufficient data to ensure the regulations will help foster growth in the industry. i support this bill. thank you, mr. chair. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: mr. chairman, we have been listening to this discussion and i think when the other side reclaims their time, it would be really helpful to explain why it is that if this is so important and that -- and that it is so urgent, why it is that the majority has cut $230
million from commercial crew. i will wait to hear the answer as i'm sure the american people are waiting and until that time i will yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman. i thank the gentlelady. i thank the managers of this bill, including the majority leader. and i just want to say that i come from space city houston, texas has as its motto its defining moment decides railroad is space city. i served 12 years on the science committee, and i had a strong commitment and continue to have a strong commitment to human space exploration, in particular the research that is garnered out of that mighty effort. i have traveled to most of the nasa centers across the nation, and i have seen outstanding
researchers. so there is no reason for any of us democrats or republicans to oppose the idea of space exploration. and in this instance commercial space exploration. but i will say to you, mr. chairman, and to my good friend the majority leader, let us walk step in step together. certainly i am concerned as someone who offered and wrote legislation to promote more safety on the international space station, proudly so legislation that was ultimately passed, and i believe has made the space station more enduring. to be able to suggest that this bill limits to a certain extent the safety requirements i believe would make this industry a better industry. to say also that we are highlighting or offering the commercial space industry over the investment in nasa which i have great concern as we look
forward to the implementation of the orion and opportunities for further space exploration, i would want to make sure that this legislation does not undermine our work with nasa. frankly, that the safety elements that are so important not only to the civilian population, because i have commercial space entities in texas just a few hundred miles away from houston texas. i also have nasa johnson. i want to know whether or not there is a conflictedness between the safety requirements that we have to implement and the safety requirements and security requirements -- i thank the distinguished gentlelady. safety requirements in the commercial space exploration. the other thing that i would offer to suggest as this bill moves to the senate is the investments that are made, the profits that may ultimately be made by commercial space exploration would be appropriate to use those moneys to invest in r&d in the federal government
for it to continue its very important unrestrained research that has been so mighty to helping so many different people under nasa. so i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. but i would ask the question, can we not provide a safety matrix for commercial space exploration as we have done in the public sector? with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mccarthy: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much. several weeks ago we passed a nasa authorization bill that returns nasa to its core mission. mr. babin: human space flight. the bill before us, h.r. 2262 builds on that good work. we have many american businesses employing thousands of american workers right now. these business the are pursuing their own space missions both orbital and suborbital.
some of these entrepreneurs have plans to reach beyond low-earth orbit such as taking the first steps towards missions to mine asteroids for precious metals. this will do more to secure america as the home of commercial space exploration than any other legislation that congress has considered. these endeavors are a great complement to federal investments in civil and military space initiatives. let's face it. in any field no american entrepreneur is going to invest billions of dollars of their own money where there is regulatory uncertainty. the space act of 2015 creates a regulatory framework and provides certainty for these privately financed endeavors to take the next steps. this legislation will bolster thousands of high-tech american jobs. building a stronger economy advancing technological leadership, and strengthening our nation's industry base.
i want to recognize the hard work of our colleagues majority leader kevin mccarthy, bill posey, dana rohrabacher, jim bridenstine, and these folks have worked hard for several years on key commercial space provisions that have been incorporated into this bill. their efforts will create an environment for these private sector companies to flourish. . i'd also like to thank our chairman, lamar smith and space subcommittee chair steven palazzo for their work in moving this legislation through the committee and bringing it to the house floor. america has always prospered because we have not stood in the way of vision naferes, but rather we have found a way to enable them to take a chance and succeed on their own. mr. mccarthy: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. babin: thank you. a vote for this bill is a vote
to inflame commercial space and propel the entrepreneurial spirit beyond our world into the final frontier of space. passing this bill tells the world that america is the home for commercial space. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards sprk thank you mr. chairman. i just want to be really, really clear with the american people because i think sometimes we talk about the commercial space industry as though it exists on its own. and in fact, it exists because the federal government and federal taxpayers have been incredibly generous for this innovative creative and growing industry. and it's because as taxpayers mr. chairman, we support the industry. $3 billion alone in
inflation-adjusted dollars go as a backstop for indemnification in case there's an accident or whatever. $3 billion is backstopped by the federal taxpayer. billions of dollars have gone into the development as the industry has grown. indeed, some projections say that nine of every 10 dollars that has gone into the development has come from the american taxpayer. hundreds of millions of dollars support the infrastructure of launch facilities that are maintained for the industry. and who knows countless dollars from state tax credits on down the line. and so it would be really inaccurate to say that any of us, republicans or democrats, or any american taxpayer, does not support the commercial space industry. we want it to be safe, we want to make sure that liability is taken care of, we want to make
sure that in fact the skin in the game of the taxpayers is met with responsible public policy and to correct the record, it's $24 million that the republican majority has actually cut from commercial crew. so again i would say if you support the industry, then please, explain why it is that you've also supported a cut to the very thing that would continue to grow the industry. with that, i would yield. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mccarthy: may i inquire how much time is remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 11 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from maryland has seven minutes remaining. mr. mccarthy: i yield three minutes to the disting westerned gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rohrabacher: yes, i'd like
to submit for the record a letter from the commercial space federation basically in comment to my colleague from maryland's comments about safety and taking great exception to what she has said about safety today. the speaker pro tempore: the request will be covered under general leave. mr. rohrabacher: let me note that the commercial space industry has not cost us taxpayers money. the commercial space industry has generated billions and billions of dollars worth of income to honest citizens who then pay their taxes who they wouldn't have jobs otherwise, not to mention, not to mention of course, the billions of dollars the commercial space industry has saved us simply by doning a more efficient job at launching satellites, at supplying the -- at launching
satellites and supplying the space station than could be done by nasa or government employees. the space act of to 15 builds on the house science, space and technology bipartisan tradition of promoting economic growth in america. today we're talking about that economic growth in terms of an emerging new entrepreneurial industry that is tremendously beneficial knot bottom line of america. the billions of dollars that it is creating with a new innovative approach to an industry occupied that goes into space in order to accomplish its missions. the space act of 2015 specifically continues the streamlined regulatory regime that congress put in place for commercial human space flight just a decade ago in the commercial space launch amendments act of 2004. i am proud to have been the one who authored that legislation.
and which passed in congress with bipartisan support. i would hope that bipartisan support continues because from 2004 it was bart gordon of tennessee and nick clampson of texas, both democrats, who made it possible for us to get this legislation passed, as well as silvestre reyes from texas and of course there are a lot of texans today involved in this debate because there are a lot of people in texas who are hired and have great jobs because of what we did then. when we talk about we hear that we have cut $243 million no. we were willing to keep that in the budget, republicans have been willing, if we found other areas that were less important. but the reason why these things happen is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot seem to prioritize. we prioritize this.
we prioritize launching new industries. creating new jobs. saving billions of dollars for the -- not in my time, i've got to finish my statement. saving billions of dollars in money that would be spent otherwise because the commercial space industry, like space ex and other industries, other champions of space entrepreneurship have done a great job to help the united states of america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to be very very clear. i was not originally, before i knew anything about the industry, much of a supporter. i didn't know about the industry. and indeed it was through the work, bipartisan work, on the science committee i that -- that i got to know the industry and to value the role that the
commercial space industry plays. so i actually don't have a quibble with the american taxpayers providing the kind of support and the development work and resources that are available through nasa to support the industry. i actually think it's a good thing for us to do. but i don't want to hide the fact that given that, in that kind -- and that kind of respopsability it's also our responsibility to provide an important safety framework for the industry to proceed especially as we go into the future. imagining that we will have many other players. i would also say that i'm concerned about what we do around liability. how we create both a safety regulatory regime but also place liability where it belongs. although in the manager's amendment, the majority does try to deal with the question of federal court jurisdiction what we don't deal with is this idea
of cross-waivers. that is if you are a passenger, you could be a researcher, not anyone who is particularly wealthy, and something happens, then mr. chairman, you've waived all of your liability even in a case where there would be negligence involved. and so this i think, ought to raise great concerns and the reality is that at the end of the day if there is any kind of catastrophic accident, the american taxpayers will of course bear the responsibility, as we always have for those accidents. and with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mccarthy: mr. chairman, my friend on the other side brings a good point. a lot of people may not know about space flight or commercial space flight, may not know about this bill. that's why this is a great opportunity to explain it. this is why the majority on this side gave the bill to the minority last october. unfortunately, it was five
months before anything came back. there's one point that was brought up, identification, that has been extended nine times in the last 25 years and has never been used. but the one thing that needs to be noted, we're in competition with the rest of the world. we are more stringent in this than any other country is with their space. so if we plan on being the leader, we need to have the legislation move forward. mr. chairman i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. posey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for three minutes. mr. posey: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the majority leader for yielding. earlier this morning during debate, there had been a number of letters a litany of letters, by various organizations offered for the record. and so i thought it would be appropriate in the interest of intellectual honesty, to enter a couple of records myself. let me read from one of them here.
on may 13, 2015, the committee on science space, and technology conducted a markup of four critical space-related bills. among the bills considered was h.r. 150 the space resource exploration and utilization act of 2015. during the markup, i'll leave the member's name out, submitted a letter for the record from joran grabowitz, former professor of law at the university of mississippi. after receiving the letter, feel it is important to clarify some of the interpretations of the interpretation of 1508 and highlight he the bill. there's a duplicate bill in the senate co-sponsored by senators patty murray and marco rubio. our comments apply to both. the basic claims in the letter
rest on two claims. an allegation that it rests on the outer space streety -- treaty, and that the united states has no framework in place for the exploration in question. both statements are intent. they go on to clarify what was completely misleading. this letter is signed by henry r. hurtsville, co-chair of the american branch of the international law association research policy, elliot school of international law affairs, adjunct professor of law at george washington university, matthew schafer, direct oor of space law program at university of nebraska college of law. james c. bennett consultant for the economic policy center in london. a professor and associate
professor at cleveland state university cleveland marshall college of law. there's a similar letter and i will submit that also. it is by dennis j. burnett district of columbia bar association, j.d. university of nebraska l.l.m., georgetown university, university of nebraska college of law, u.s. trade law space law space, cyberand telecom program. secretary and director international institute of space law. i think that clearly they reflect there have been some misleading information put forth in objecting to this bill and urge my colleagues to take that into consideration and vote favorably for this badly needed historic and constructive legislation to make america's space program and commercial space industry much better. thank you and i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. edwards: the letters submitted by the majority are interesting. one of the authors is paid by one of the companies that is involved in this legislation. so we should take that into consideration. also want to point out that with respect to indemnification, again, the united states and current, today's dollars bears the responsibility for about $3 billion in indemnification should there be an accident. and then lastly, of course it's really important for us to understand that these liability concerns are not small potatoes and in fact the judiciary committee should have taken a look at this when it comes to looking at federal court
jurisdiction. we should have had additional hearings on this when it comes to looking at the impact on international treaties. we haven't had any hearings in that regard system of i just think we ought to proceed more responsibly and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. . the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to support h.r. 2262. the spurring private aerospace competitive and entrepreneurial act of 2015 or the space act. since 2004, congress last amended the commercial space launch act. commercial space companies have made significant contributions to space technology development and helped to strengthen the american leadership in space. congress must keep up with the changes in the industry and the
csla needs to be updated to ensure the space sector can flourish in the years to come. currently all major space exploring nations require some third party liability insurance for launching satellites -- entities. that expires next year. the act would extend until 2025 in order to prevent u.s. launches from going overseas and taking high-tech american jobs with them. in a letter praising the extension of the indemnification, the president of the satellite industry association wisely stated that the act is an important step in maintaining u.s. innovation and leadership in satellite launch and one that promotes overall access to space. several other groups such as the commercial space flight federation have had similar comments to praise the extension. moreover this bill promotes sthrablet and flexibility -- stability and flexibility. by extending the learning period to 2025, the federal aviation
administration industry will have more time to collect information and develop a safety framework for commercial space flight. this will ensure that the growing commercial space market will not be overburdened with uninformed regulations. space-based technology has become a vital part of our economy. americans rely on it every day from g.p.s. to weather forecasting to land remote sensing, and everything we do. the space act gives the private sector a chance to expand this growing portion of our economy by allowing commercial space flight companies to take passengers to and from space and by setting the groundwork for a competitive -- comprehensive safety framework. now is not the time to turn our backs on the innovators and entrepreneurs who have made this nation great. if we care about american leadership in space, the american -- and the american space economy, i urge you to support this important piece of legislation. i yield back the balance of my time the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california
reserves. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: mr. chairman i have no further speakers. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. and again the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mccarthy: mr. chairman, i have no further speakers either. i'm prepared to close after the gentlelady. the chair: the gentlelady from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you mr. chair. i rise here today because i said in my opening remarks that i think that most of us on both sides of the aisle share in the excitement about the commercial space industry and we do, indeed, want it to succeed. we all work for the taxpayers and the american taxpayer, as i stated has a vested interest in the commercial space industry because we have laid out hundreds of millions of dollars billions of dollars, to support it. mr. chairman, the senate yesterday marked up a bipartisan compromise bill with very few changes to it. on the other hand, this bill if
it passes the house unchanged is going to be dead in the water. but if we pass the substitute that we are considering later on and i offer later today, we'll have a great chance to do some real lawmaking. it will not have adressed all of the industry concerns. it will not have done anything to get in the way of the advance of commercial space. so i urge my fellow members to support a bipartisan process that began over in the senate. vote for the substitute amendment later on and to say we can start fresh here not with something that just disadvantages consumers and taxpayers and try to be on the same page when it comes to the strong support that i think each side feels with respect to the commercial space industry. with that i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mccarthy: mr. chairman, i
yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: mr. chairman i have one question for everyone here. do you believe america is exceptional? 54 years ago president kennedy spoke to a joint session of congress in this very chamber. and he set forth an astounding goal. to put an american on the moon before the end of the decade. many doubted our ability to do that. but like america has done throughout our history, we proved them wrong. so, on july 20, 1969, kneel armstrong took one small step and -- neil armstrong took one small step and changed the course of history. you see, president kennedy's vision is part of america's fundamental character. we are pioneers. we always move forward. we never back down from a
challenge. and beating the odds is in our d.n.a. this was the case for our very founding. we brought forth a new nation in pursuit of a more perfect union. with the winds of freedom at our back, we headed west to unchartered lands. relying on the same spirit of adventure that endures the central valley of california to this day. we watched two bicycle repairmen flew above the sand and waves on the a-- on a beach in north carolina. not because of government grants, but because they had the audacity to make a dream a reality. today in dorm room start-ups and tech entrepreneurs are connecting our entire world paving the way for tomorrow. the world looks to america because we give them a reason to look to us. we show them a vision of the future and we deliver.
but we can't take our global leadership and innovation for granted. today we pay russia $70 million for one seat on their rocket. right now there is a new generation of pioneers. they want to embark on the next stage of space exploration. and we should not hold them back. the truth is washington never comes up with the next big idea, but we can support those innovators who do. and create the best environment possible for them to succeed. steve jobs, one of america's great innovators, once said, innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower. that is true for people and for our country. those words carry special meaning for everyone whoever dared to venture off the beaten path. it means something to the small business owners working at the
given tables and the inventors tinkering in the dorm rooms and garages. it means something to every kid whoever dreamed of space. and who still dreams of leading us in a journey to the stars. so for all american pioneers, those who will lead our nation through the 21st century i again ask do you believe america is exceptional? because i do. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on science space, and technology printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-17.
that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of house report 114-217. each such amendment may be offered only in order printed -- in the report by a member designated in the report and 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 a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 114-27. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. chairman, i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report number 114-127, offered by mr. smith of texas. the chair: pursuant to house
resolution 273, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: this amendment contains minor corrections to the underlying bill and generally technical in nature t provides clarity to some of the reports in the bill on the learning period, traffic management, commercial remote sensing, and the inclusion of classified annexes. additionally, this amendment ensures that federal courts handling legal disputes with up to substantive state law that result from claims from a federally licensed launch. finally this amendment includes a reporting requirement from the government accounting office about the inclusion of state and municipal responsibilities. those technical amendment will improve the clarity of multiple sections of the bill and ensure continued support for the growing commercial space industry. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the
gentlelady from maryland seek recognition? ms. edwards: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment although i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. edwards: mr. chairman i yield myself such time as i may consume. the amendment partially addresses concerns that we have had with the federal jurisdiction provision in h.r. 2262. maintaining quote under federal law, end quote would have resulted in eliminating the rights of individuals to bring almost any type of legal action against companies related to commercial space flight accidents due to the lack of any applicable federal law. i'd also like to highlight another change in the manager's amendment that goes beyond a technical remedy or simple clarification. the amendment adds the requirement for the secretary of commerce to provide an annual report on its review of applications for licenses, for commercial remote sensing. the manager's amendment now
makes accommodation for the inclusion of classified annexes as necessary. mr. speaker, while this is a necessary addition to protect the disclosure of sensitive or classified information, it is only necessary because this amendment adds the requirement for the secretary of commerce to provide information related to the interagency adjudication process of a commercial remote sensing licensing request. i highlight these two changes because they demonstrate that the process of developing h.r. 2262 has been rushed and not very well thought out. had we taken the time to hold hearings and sort things out, we actually could have had an opportunity to consider these changes as part of the committee process. that said, i support the chairman's amendment to make some needed improvements to the bill though i firmly believe it still needs an awful lot more work. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i'll continue to
reserve my time as well. we are prepared to yield back as soon as the minority has. the chair: the gentleman reserves. once again the gentlelady is recognized. ms. edwards: mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. and the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. 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. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 114-127. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 plinted in part a of house report number 114-127, offered
by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 273, the gentleman from arizona mr. grijalva, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you very much, mr. chairman. today i rise to offer an amendment to support and facilitate innovation in this cutting-edge american enterprise. my amendment will expand the eligibility for experimental permits for usable rockets to include reusable launch vehicles. experimental permits currently have three uses. the research and development of new test defines, concept, equipment, or operating techniques. to show compliance with requirements as part of the process for obtaining a license or to train crews before they receive a license for launch or re-entry. however, f.a.a. clearly does not have the ability to grant experimental permits for launch vehicles.
under current law, they are restricted to granting permits for reusable suborbital rockets. they can require industry and the federal government to go to extraordinary lengths to find ways to conduct tests. in some cases there is no alternative for testing. expanding access to these permits will help innovators develop new and important technologies right here in america. . these will help harness the tremendous potential of our space exploration industry. i want to thank chairman lamar smith, ranking member eddie bernice johnson for their staffs' assistance with this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time, i have no other speakers. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i claim time in opposition to the amendment, though i don't oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection the
gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: this amendment ensures the commercial space industry isn't pigeon holed into specific vehicle designs. by allowing different vehicles to be included, we allow the industry to grow, innovate and continue to improve safety designs. this amendment is reasonable and consistent with the spirit of the license flexibility provision of the underlying bill so i support the gentleman's amendment and yield become the balance of my time as well. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 114-127. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. rohrabacher: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number
three printed in house report 114-127, offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 273, the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, and a member opposed each will control phi minutes. cher -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: my amendment calls for a study analyzing our approach to third party liability with regard to space flight participants. the study will identify issues like options to address those issues consequences of those options and potential cost to the federal government for each option. i would note that the idea for this study was orangally put forward by ms. edwards of maryland, someone who i deeply admire and listen to. she makes her point. and we heard her in the -- make her points during discussion with our committee and i felt it was a very good idea and i am moving forward with it today.
the underlying bill includes a legislative fix for third party liability and space flight participants. this -- that's what our bill does. however, a study would see if there's even a better way or if we've covered all our bases with the fecks in this bill. right now a space flight participant is financially at risk if the vehicle they fly on has some kind of incident. so -- doesn't mat fer you're a billionaire or someone who scrimped for a listening time to get one of these space flights or maybe a contest winner or a science teach whore wants to share his experience with students, we're -- or just a scientist who wants to accompany an experiment. right now, these folks aren't just paying a fare they're potentially risking everything thatter that family owns because they may be liable if something goes wrong. the fix, as we say we have a fix about that in the current bill but the study would see if
there's a better way and some other things we can do to make that fix better. there's no reason at this point to believe that this approach is any worse than the other approaches but let's keep our minds open. right now we have a hole in the bridge and we put a patch on that hole, so let's see if there's a study to see if there's a better way to fix the bridge. in the meantime, we've got something in place in this bill and a study to see if we can do a better job. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from maryland is recognize -- i'm sorry, for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland seek recognition? ms. edwards: i rise to claim time in opposition to the bill, though i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. edwards: i just want to note for the record, though i'm not in opposition, i think the study is a good idea, ideally i would think that congress would choose
to study the thing before it actually passes the law but that's not where we are today so i do support -- i think that it's a good idea to proceed forward with this amendment and with that i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: i thank the gentlelady for giving us the idea for this study in the first place and i yield one minute to chairman smith. the chair: the gentleman yields, the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i thank my colleague from california, mr. rohrabacher member of the science, space and technology committee for yielding me time. i want to say that this requires an independent report about the inclusion of space flight participants in the indemnification regime. gathering information on this policy will be helpful for future legislation. requiring this study is consistent with the spirit of the underlying bill and i support it and yield become the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields
back. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in the opinion of they have chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 114-127. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. castro: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 114-127, offered by mr. castro of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 273, the gentleman from texas, mr. castro and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the
gentleman from texas. mr. castro: first i'd like to thank my colleague from san antonio and the chairman, ramar smith and also fellow texan eddie bernice johnson, ranking member on the committee for they work on this bill and for consideration of my amendment. my amendment concerns the orbital trafficking study. it has the administrator of nasa enter into an agreement with an independent systems engineering to study frameworkers in management of space traffic and orbital activities. my amendment would include nonprofits so that nonprofit, independent research organizations can contribute to this critical work. so in addition to allowing for private contractors to be part of this discussion, my amendment would also allow for nonprofits to do the same. in texas, we have become a hub of -- for space research and exploration. some of the private industries
private businesses doing work in this area include lockheed martin and boeing, but they're also wonderful nonprofits like the southwest institute in my hometown and the research association based in houston. my amendment would allow these nonprofits to be part of this work. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek reck necessary? mr. smith: i claim time in opposition though i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, this amendment requires the orbit call traffic management study to be conducted by an independent, nonprofit, organization requiring the study be done by a nonprofit is reasonable and consistent with the spirit of the study requirement in the underlying bill. i appreciate the amendment. i yield back. i reserve the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. castro: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the chairman from texas. mr. smith: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in part a of house report 114-127. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five printed in part a of house report 114-127, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 273, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: let me thank
the chair and let me also thank the manager of this bill, the chairman of the full committee, and let me thank the ranking member of the full committee both for the hard work they do on issues that are important to our nation and their service to this country. let me thank the gentlelady from maryland, ms. edwards for managing, her astute leadership on many of these issues. let me as well indicate my commitment to space exploration and as i said earlier, i hope that we can work on a number of issues but i hope we can work together on what i think is an important economic engine for the nation. first starting with john f. kennedy's challenge to all of us developing through president johnson, the nasa centers across america, and the enormous research that has been done over the years. i remember debating this question of funding for nasa in
the 1990's and 2000's, talking about the research of heart disease, cancer, h.i.v. 46 aids. -- h.i.v.-aids. i say that to say as we move into commercial space exploration, we want to be sure that opportunities are given to all of america. this is commercial, yes, but the provisions of commercial space work is enhanced by the government and the resources that we have. so my amendment is to provide that recognition to and conduct outreach to the small minority and women owned businesses. it requires that the bill address future legislation should include work on how to effectively conduct outreach to small business concerns owned and controlled by women and minorities. as we've all worked hard to encourage small business owners to produce jobs, this is a great
entrepreneurial effort and therefore i support the initiatives that would increase outreach to small businesses and create more jobs. there are approximately six million minority owned businesses in the united states, representing a significant aspect of our economy and many, many more women and small-owned businesses and other minority-owned businesses and so i would ask that my amendment be accepted and i reserve the him -- my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i claim time in opposition to the amendment though i don't oppose it. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: this amendment requires the launch, line and streamline report to include recommendations on how the f.a.a. should facilitate outreach to minority and women-owned businesses. i don't object to the gentlewoman's amendment and i reserve. chip the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized.
ms. jackson lee: how much time remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman has 2 1/2 minutes remains. -- remaining. ms. jackson lee: minority and women-owned business currently total close to eight million. according to the most recent available census data minority owned businesses employ about six million americans and generate $1 trillion in economic output. my district is home to thousands of women and minority-owned businesses. i would say if we can include this amendment that outreach to these entities under this commercial space exploration legislation will be adding more jobs to the american economy. i ask for this support of the jackson lee amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield back as well. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number six printed in part a of house report 114-127. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number six printed in part a of house report 114-127 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. ms. jackson lee: pursuant to house resolution 273, 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: thank you very much. again mitigating circumstance appreciation to all of those who are on the floor today. my amendment speaks to discussions that this congress has had over many, many years on the question of science, technology engineering and math and in particular working with more vulnerable communities.
my amendment would facilitate the participation of hispanic serving institutions and others in the commercial space industry. i remember in -- some years ago we developed a fellowship for graduate and ph.d. candidates at texas southern university to interact at nasa johnson with a very effective effort and certainly well received by those who were table participate. that is again, investing in universities and colleges that interact, again, with vulnerable populations or outreach to minority students and expose them again at graduate level and undergraduate level to science, technology, engineering and math. . therefore the imagination that
fuels invention is so valuable to the well-being of our nation. my amendment would fall in that spirit by increasing awareness among underrepresented groups in stem employment and education opportunities and i would hope would create partnerships between the commercial space industry and our hbcus, native american institution hispanic serving and allow work study and employment opportunities in this growing and emerging commercial space industry. i believe it would be an excellent partnership to the economic engine of this nation. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment though i don't oppose the amendment. the clerk: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, this amendment requires the launch license streamlining report in the underlying bill to include recommendations on how the f.a.a. might facilitate the prpgs of historically black colleges and universities hispanic service institution,
and national indian institutions in the emerging commercial space industry. i don't object to the amendment. i reserve the mool of -- reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i'd like to thank the gentleman for the support of both my amendments. i again would indicate that every opportunity we have to grow the economy and expand to those populations not fully included, this congress should take an opportunity to do. i see in this amendment opportunity for jobs partnerships and certainly opportunity for growing the engineers and other talented persons that we need for in essence, a new america with a new economy technologically based. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. and the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield back as well. the chair: the gentleman last yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. 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. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 brinted in part a of house report 114-127. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland seek recognition? ms. edwards: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report number 114-127. offered by ms. edwards of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 273, the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman i'm offering this substitute amendment because i think we have a unique opportunity this week to pass bipartisan commercial space legislation that actually stands a chance of becoming law. that is what we need to focus on this morning. the choice before us is really
quite straightforward. we can spend the morning as we have fighting over the provisions of h.r. 2262. several of which were opposed by all of the democratic members of the science space and technology committee when its provisions were marked up just last week. and when we are done, members can vote largely on party lines to pass the bill. but to what end mr. chairman? the senate has already made it clear that h.r. 2262 has the proverbial snowball's chance of being adopted by the senate. pursuing house legislation, house passage of a bill that's going nowhere in the senate seems to me to be the ultimate exercise of few tillity and one that does a real disservice to the commercial space launch industry that all of us are trying to help succeed. but we don't have to go down that path. my amendment would replace the underlying text of h.r. 2262 with provisions of the bipartisan senate commercial
space bill. the one that was just marked up in committee just yesterday. let me repeat that. the language in the substitute amendment, my amendment already has garnered bipartisan support in the senate. it is language that is co-sponsored by senators ted cruz, bill nelson, corey gardner, and gary peters which is not something you can say about many other bills that we consider in the house. now, the senate bill doesn't have everything. i would like to see a commercial space bill. i'm sure that's the same for my republican colleagues and for some in the industry. that's actually how legislation is made. however it has a core set of provisions that i think we and the industry can support and that's what good compromises are all about. the amendment addresses key issues facing the industry. it extends the learning period for another five years. it extends third party liability and indemnification of the entire regime for another four years. it provides commercial space
launch licensing and experimental permits flexibility. it provides the nasa definition of government astronaut. and provides a path for streamlining commercial space launch activities. the senate provisions also provide for a review of issues related to commercial activities in space. as well as matters related to space situational awareness data. they provide encouragement for the f.a.a. and the industry to work together to facilitate the development of voluntary consensus standards. and they also ensure the international space station can remain a viable and productive facility through 2024. mr. chairman, that's what my amendment does. it doesn't give the commercial space industry anything or everything that some in the industry might want. but i would remind colleagues that the senate bill has been endorsed by the commercial space flight federation, the national space society students for exploration, and development of
space space x, blue origin, and virgin galatic, among others. that's the senate bill. that's the substitute that's being offered. so members today can feel perfectly comfortable that my amendment is one that the commercial space industry believes meets its legitimate needs. mr. chairman, as i said in the beginning of my remarks, we have a clear choice today. we can maintain a counterproductive partisan divide and hold out for provisions that won't move this legislation even one inch closer to becoming law, or we can step back take a deep breath, and embrace the bipartisan compromise that our colleagues in the senate have worked out. they have handed us a golden opportunity to move past partisan posturing and actually deliver legislation that can meet the needs of the commercial space industry and be enacted into law. mr. chairman house democrats support the provisions in my amendment. democrats and republicans in the senate support the provisions of my amendment. if my republican colleagues here
today in the house can join us in supporting this substitute amendment, the provisions in the amendment we can pass bipartisan legislation that could be on its way to the president for enactment in a matter of weeks. i can think of no matter way to end this week and i urge members to vote yes on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. chairman, i came time in opposition to the amendment. the clerk: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this amendment seeks to strike and replace the entire underlying bill with senate legislation which differs with the house bill in many respects. the senate bill 1297 is a work product of the senate it has not been negotiated with any member of this chamber. in fact, the senate just marked up the bill yesterday. this amendment advocates --
abdicates the house's legislative responsibilities to the senate. the space act paves the way for the next generation of explorers and innovators. this amendment prevents the house from providing any direction for the future of space exploration. we must consider what we will forfeit if we accept this amendment. the amendment significantly shortens the extension of a regulatory learning period and extension of the indemnification regime. these changes reduce certainty in the commercial launch market and could threaten the jobs of thousands of americans. these are hardworking men and women who depend on the extension of these laws for their jobs. they count on us to provide some certainty for their industry. this amendment strikes all of the commonsense transparency provisions in the space act and significantly shortens the extension of the learning period. this extension is essential to the health of the commercial space industry. also this amendment includes a significant reduction to the regulatory flexibility provided in the underlying bill.
the underlying bill reassesses -- requires assessments from the f.a.a. on the growth of the industry, constructed interaction between stakeholders and the f.a.a., a glide path to a safety framework that enables and encourages innovation, and improvements in safety. these are all part of a development structure that combines lessons learned from the industry with the inherent government function to protect the public. the underlying bill plea serves f.a.a.'s ability to regulate -- preserves f.a.a.'s ability to regulate to protect national security, public health, and safety. it also preserve's f.a.a.'s exists for space flight participant even safety. it does not include any benchmarking tools for congress to monitor the growth of the industry. the amendment removes the tablet of stakeholders to work with the f.a.a. to develop safety standards that will improve the industry as a whole. the amendment will have a chilling effect on the industry
and put stakeholders on the defense against an onslaught of government intervention and possible lawsuits. this does not support a dynamic space economy or encourage innovation. this amendment assumes that the commercial space industry has not placed a priority on safety. it is unfortunate that the minority looks at the american entrepreneurial spirit in this way. under the senate bill, space flight participants would be exposed to significant financial risk and liability. this amendment strikes the vital provisions of the underlying bill which help ensure that human space flight is available to anyone who wants to participate. the minority talks a lot about safety. i appreciate that. i think everyone involved in the space industry places a high priority on these endeavors being as safe as possible. i just wish the minority had a higher opinion of the scientists, engineers, and technicians building these systems. let's be clear. space is inparently risky. america's memory is imprinted with tragic events such as the
apollo 1 fire, challenger, and colombia. the appropriate way to improve safety systems and reduce risk is to test launch, learn study, and repeat. the entire space industry is behind this bill. i do not oppose the gentlewoman's amendment simply because the senate bill has no good qualities. i oppose the gentlewoman's amendment because it would abdicate the responsibilities of the house. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and not turn their backs on so many space companies. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. and the gentlewoman from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: mr. chairman, how much time remains on both sides? the chair: the gentlelady has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. edwards: thank you. with that i yield four minutes to the gentlewoman, the ranking member from texas, ms. johnson. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentlelady.
i rise in strong support of ms. edwards' amendment. this amendment offers the possibility of actually accomplishing something worthwhile today. it is an amendment that should garner bipartisan support. just last week the science committee reported out h.r. 2262 and h.r. 1508 an bipartisan line votes. of course, we had moved to markup without any hearings on commercial space issues in the 104th congress, nor legislative hearing on either bill. nor subcommittee markup. it is, thus, not surprising that they could not garner any significant bipartisan support for these bills. and yet now here we are on the floor with these same bills and we take the same path we took yesterday in consideration of the competes legislation, we'll get a similar result. a partisan vote and a bill that will never become law.
ms. edwards offers us another way forward. just yesterday, the senate commerce committee favorably reported out s. 1297, the senate's bipartisan commercial space bill a bill introduced by senators ted cruz and bill nelson. as i said, it is a bipartisan bill that was endorsed by a large segment of the commercial space industry when it was introduced. ms. edwards' amendment simply incorporates the provisions of s. 1297 into her amendment. mr. chairman, instead of engaging in a meaningful exercise, we could vote today to approve a bipartisan legislation that the senate democrats and republicans are supporting. while the senate bill is not the bill i would have written, it is a vast improvement over the bill we have before us today. as the gentleman said earlier,
america is exceptional and that's why we have a congress. and that's why we have committee structure. that's why we have a subcommittee who examine issues and listen to witnesses. that's why we have committee work. it provides an effort for us to come together. and the bill that is in the senate provides constructive updates. i know some members want to go further than the senate bill in some areas, but the reality is there's no bipartisan consensus to doing so. . if we proceed to pass h.r. 2262, we will have passed a bill the senate probably will not take up. we did that with competes bill yesterday. do we want to waste our time in the same way again this morning, holding out hope that somehow these contentious provisions
will favor in house and conference is an exercise in futility. time is not on our side in dealing with two expired authorities in this bill and we know congress can act to extend them without passing a commercial space bill. i think that this outcome would be unfortunate but i see the likelihood that the senate -- i see no likelihood that the senate will do anything with h.r. 2262 and i think in a conference house democrats would be disenclined to support amendments included today. ms. edwards' amendment offers us a chance to avoid months of back and forth. we could see it head to the desk -- to the president's desk within weeks. all it takes is my colleagues
being willing to forego posturing and instead accept a reasonable compromise bill that would do much to meet the legitimate needs. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield four minutes to mr. brianen stein of the science committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bridenstine: thank you. i'd like to thank the chairman for working this bill through the regular order so that all the amendments we have made, all the members have had their voices heard in this bill. i would rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. the language she is proposing to insert into our house bill is authored by senator cruz and does have bipartisan support with senator nelson but it does -- there are provisions that we
got included because of the open process that we went through that are not included in that bill and i'd like to just maybe run through a few of those that i myself got included into this bill, starting with section 110. which was an amendment i offered at markup that will require a g.a.o. report to capture the role of space support vehicles. training vehicles if you will, in the commercial space industry. regulatory and statutory barriers to the services these vehicles offer and recommendations for updates that will address these barriers. this is critically important in my neck of woods, the state of oklahoma we have a space port at burns flat. there are businesses there very interested in doing training for commercial crew and commercial space flight participants. this was a provegs of the bill that went through an open process. it was an amendment that was accepted in a very bipartisan way and i'm hopeful that when the full bill gets to the floor
it will be accepted in a bipartisan way. additionally, title 3 of this bill incorporates h.r. 2261, the commercial remote sensing act which was also bipartisan legislation they introduced with my friend from colorado, mr. perlmutter. this title sets metrics to give congress a full picture of the work load facing the department of commerce when licensing emote sensing activities and what issues are preventing them from meeting statutory deadlines. title 3 also recognizes the importance of seeking input from the advisory committee for commercial remote sensing which is largely made up of private sector representatives. this legislation will be crucial to -- as industry expands beyond traditional remote sensing satellite and activities and a congress looks to update the statutes governing these activities for the first time since the 1990's. my case for this being bipartisan is that i worked very hard with the other side on the
amendments that i ultimately got into the bill. there were some amendments that maybe were not as bipartisan. but i would attest that there is support on the other side of the aisle for a lot of the provisions that we got into this bill. and certainly i look forward to taking a vote on this bill. i oppose the amendment in the nature of a subs duet and -- substitute and encourage my colleagues to pass the bill that went through regular order in the house of representatives. i hear a lot of people talking about regular order. this was a very open process. everybody had their voice heard. i encourage passage of the bill but not passage of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: i have no additional speakers, i'm prepared to close. does the gentleman have -- the gentleman is done. mr. chairman as i've said
before, we have offered this amendment, my amendment in the nature of a substitute, because we are interested not just in making speeches here on the house floor, we're interested in passing law and good policy that will be signed by the president, that will set the commercial space industry onto a pathway of continued innovation and success. as has been described, the senate yesterday out of committee marked up a bill that is bipartisan in nature and because of the negotiations, there are not going to be any changes. we want to make law for the industry. we believe that this amendment in the nature of a substitute is good policy and i urge a yes vote on the amendment and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i urge my colleagues
to oppose the substitute amendment and support the underlying bill which has significant improvements to the senate bill and that is why we should pass it. i would also like to enter into the record some letters between the science space and technology committee. the chair: the question is overed -- covered by general leave. mr. smith: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the question is on the amendment offered by the jeath from ms. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. edwards: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. edwards: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of 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 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
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 173rk the nays are 236. the amendment ♪ adopted. -- are 173, the nays are 236. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. -- the ayes have it. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr.
chairman. the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 262 and pursuant to the house resolution 273, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate demanded on any of the amendments to amend reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: the bill to improve the environment for the developing commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and promoting regulatory conditions and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those fearing a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause of rule 20, this is a five manufacture minute vote on passage of the bill. it will be followed by a fave minute vote on adoption of hose
resolution 24. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 284, the nays are 133. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 274 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 35. house resolution 274. res. lose -- resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1335, to amend the
magnusson stevens fishery act to provide stability for fishermen and other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237. the nays are 174. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask for unanimous consent that representative adam schiff be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 1622. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir on may 20 2015, pursuant to section 3307 and 3315-b of title 40
united states code the committee on transportation and infrastructure met in open session to consider two building project survey resolutions and one resolution that amends a resolution approved by the committee on february 12, 2015, and which was included in the general services administration's g.s.a. fiscal year 2015 capital investment and leasing programs. the committee continues to work to cut waste and cost to federal property and leases. the two building project surveys establish clear timetables on reviews g.s.a. is currently undertaking to address emergencies. the amended resolution incorporates additional information provided to the committee by g.s.a. with respect to lease space that will ultimately be released and consolidated into government-owned space. i enclosed copies of the resolutions adopted by the committee on transportation and infrastructure on may 20, 2015. signed sincerely, bill shuster chairman.
the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on appropriations. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 178 an act to provide justice for the victims of trafficking. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now entertains requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members can take their conversations off the floor. the house will come to order.
without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. mcsally: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the men and women from southern arizona who have given their lives in service to our country. countless southern arizonans have bravely raised their right hands and volunteered to make the defense of our nation their responsibility. some have made the ultimate sacrifice. their stories of bravery and selflessness are remembered every day stories like army command master sergeant martin r. bareas who was killed in afghanistan in 2014. our u.s. army specialist chrystan m. adams, a native of sierra vista, who was killed in afghanistan in 2010. or u.s. air force senior airman benjamin are white who was killed when his helicopter was shot down in afghanistan in
2010. these are just some of the many stories of brave southern arizonans who fought and died to preserve our way of life. their sacrifices remind us this weekend and every day that freedom is never free. have a meanful memorial day, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts for what purpose do you seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in recognition of brain tumor awareness month. every single year nearly 70,000 people in our country will be diagnosed with a brain tumor. tragically, over 4,000 of those will be children. by the end of this year roughly 14,000 americans will
lose their lives due to a brain tumor. like many others across this country, my family has also been touched by this painful disease. but for patients and their loved ones hope persists. whether it's through increased funding through n.i.h. research that just passed the energy and commerce committee this morning or through tireless efforts through nonprofits organizations like the national brain tumor society, we should not and cannot accept the notion that brain tumor is untreatable any longer. this month and every month we must support the efforts of our scientists, doctors and advocates as they search for new treatment options to develop new cures. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house, please come to order. members, take your conversations off the floor.
for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i rise to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to reflect on what memorial day means to our country and to honor our men and women of the armed forces. our nation has always stood strong on its founding principles of freedom but it's taken wars and generations of brave, selfless individuals to preserve and defend it. for their service, we are eternally grateful. we are especially mindful of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to our country, for our country and the fact that freedom is not free. their valiant acts in the line of duty have kept our families safe both at home and abroad, and there are no words for the gratitude we hold in our hearts
today and always. so as we spend time this weekend with our loved ones on this great american holiday, please keep our active and fallen service men and women in your thoughts and prayers. mr. bishop: and we pray for those currently serving that they return home safely. happy memorial day, and god bless the united states of america. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate mario razo and maria ponce the first husband and wife to have ever been named
as teachers of the year at their respective schools. mr. veasey: they immigrated to the united states from mexico to become bilingual educators. maria who teaches dual language and third grade, and mario, who teaches pre-k, have both proudly served the district for seven years. while each present a different style of coaching in the classroom, both exemplify the dead keags and passion needed to shape the minds and lives of our youngest members of society. although we should recognize the hard work of all the teachers that perform on behalf of their students each and every day, today i want to recognize maria and mario's unique achievement. it brings me great pride to represent the teachers of texas' 33rd congressional district and i western mario and maria continued success. congratulations on this outstanding achievement. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize may as national foster care month. before i came to congress i was c.e.o. of a home for abused, neglected and aban dodd children called home safe. in addition to providing a caring home for children in need, our staff and volunteers helped connect them with foster families who we also helped certify. mr. rooney: i saw firsthand the struggle children face when they don't have a safe home. i saw what a remarkable difference it could make when they found a stable and loving family. and i saw the incredible joy these children brought to the lyes of their foster families our staff and volunteers and everyone who worked to support them. all children deserve a safe and loving and permanent home. we must continue to work together to make that goal a
reality for the 400,000 children in our foster care system. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. since taking office, my top priority has been to support policies that improve our economy and strengthen the middle class. last month i released my jobs plan summarizing what i've heard from small business owners, job seekers and community leaders throughout san bernardino county. among the many issues people face is the skills gap, the disconnect that exists between potential employees and the available job market demands of those who possess specific or technical skills. mr. aguilar: that was one of the biggest problems i heard. that's why yesterday i
introduced the on the job training tax credit of 2015. a bill that creates a temporary tax credit for employers to use to help pay for the cost of training new hires. this will enable local owners to expand their businesses and empower employees with critical skills to help them succeed in the 21st century economy. through apprenticeship programs vocational schools and more job seekers will be retrained and brought back into the fold in the inland empire's economy. we have been told $3.5 million jobs will open over the next 10 years but we'll only be able to fill two million of them due to the skills gap. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one min. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the
patriot act was designed to protect us from terrorists abroad. now we've learned that section 215 of they have -- of the patriot act has been abused by the n.s.a. and it's spying on americans, taking me ta data. but there's more. there's another law, the fisa amendments act of 2008, section 702, allows the seizure without a warrant of the content of emails, text messages and phone calls by our government. congress must address this as it has addressed section 215 of the patriot act. it also allows under 702, the back door search. in other words n.s.a. can go into google and seize information about americans without a warrant. n.s.a. cannot be trusted to protect and follow america's laws and protect our privacy this soviet-style surveillance on americans has got to stop. the right of privacy is sacred. i introduced, along with zoe
lofgren a bipartisan bill to eliminate section 02 so americans are protected. we cannot allow the bruising of the fourth amendment by the snooping n.s.a. under the false claim of national security. if you have proximate cause to seize that information, get a warrant. -- if you have probable cause to seize that information, get a warrant under the constitution of the united states. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: 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 is recognized for one minute ms. brown: mr. speaker, i want to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the head start program. which has -- mrs. wilson: as a former head start teacher i know firsthand what access to education and a hearty breakfast can do for a child. head start introduced millions
of children to learning and as a result omany of them have gone on to earn college degrees and become teachers, lawyers, doctors and even elected officials. mr. speaker, without head start many children from low income families would not receive the nutritional and educational services that are so important to early childhood development. i stand with my colleagues in the house and on the committee on education and the work force scalling for continued funding for this vital program which has been crucial in improving the lives of countless deserving children across the country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> request 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. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize a real
american hero who risked his life to preserve the freedoms we all enjoy today. yesterday, knave commander philip kirkwood accepted the congressional gold medal presented to american fighter aces. mr. jolly: he enlisted in the knave in 1942 earning his neaf wings aier later he joined the vf-10 flying hellcats off the enterprise. he recorded his victory in 1944 but it would be far from his last. over his distinguished career he recorded 12 confirmed victories and one probable. i thank commander kirkwood. may god bless philip kirkwood and may god bless our fighter aces. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thanks mr. speaker, rise today to recognize the life and service of bishop curtis montgomery of washington. he was a key leader who shepherded the hill top neighborhood through civil rights struggles and troubled times. mr. kilmer: his steadfast leader shp and staunch belief in the pow over community involvement will be remembered in the revitalization of this historically significant neighborhood.
i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: the way to honor those who give their life for our can'try is on memorial day. we've learned this week that at least $6 billion in taxpayer money has been lost in illegal contracts at the v.a. v.a. employees improsecutorerly -- improperly receiving gifts
including room upgrades, meals helicopter rides, tickets for the rockets. this week the house passed six bills that give the american veterans the support they need and demand the accountability at the v.a. we must get answers and i am committed to being part of the solution. next week, i will visit the spokane veteran's hospital and recognize those who do work hard to serve our veterans and every day we are working to support veterans in eastern washington. we atended the v.a. 2k relay for life with military and community and v.a. staff. we'll continue to work with county leaders to address the needs of our veterans throughout eastern washington. may god bless all those who have served. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request 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. mr. thompson: thank you mr. speaker. on friday, may 29, i will have the privilege of attending a ceremony and play in warren county pennsylvania, titled, "beyond glory" which will highlight the story of eight medal of honor recipients in wars of the 20th century. the theme of the evening is first county of veterans, recognizing that warren county, pennsylvania, has the largest veterans population per capita of any county in pennsylvania. i'm looking forward to celebrating this special evening with local veteran who was sacrificed so much. mr. speaker, memorial day is right around the corner and as a proud father of an army soldier and a daughter-in-law that is now a veteran, it is my privilege to serve our nation's veterans and my honor to recognize those who have lost their lives in service to our country. memorial day for many americans has become the holiday that marks the start of the summer season. for the men and women who have served in our armed forces and
in doing so gave their lives, we owe them our remembrance and demonstrated appreciation. it is my sincere hope that you'll pause this memorial day in remembrance of our fallen soldiers whose courage and bravery sustain our liberty. thank you mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. reichert: memorial day is a day to honor whose who -- those who made the ult -- mr. coffman: memorial day is a day to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our
nation. an elite member of war far group one, jason courts distinguished himself consistently throughout his life and during his short military career. hailing from highlands ranch colorado he, graduated from the university of denver. most recently jason set himself apart when he was selected as the honor man of his basic underwater demolition seal class. tragically, this true patriot and consummate professional gai his life in defense of our nation when he died during a training accident on april -- on march 18, 2015. on this memorial day, please join me and the family of jason courts to pause and reflect on the ultimate sacrifices that warriors like jason have made to uphold all that we value as a nation. thank you mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. may is senior member of the house committee on energy commerce and health subcommittee, i want to take this opportunity to bring attention to asthma in the united states and what must be done to control its growth. asthma is one of the most serious chronic diseases in the country and affects 26 million americans and can cause shortness of breath wheezing, chest pain and even death. in my state, asthma takes a heavy toll. 390,000 children and 1.4 add utilities in new york have asthma and hospitalizations in 2007 was staggering $535
million. i have a strong supporter of the national asthma control program which implements systems to monitor and treat asthma. this has resulted in $-- 2 -- $23.1 billion decline since 2001. people need to manage their diseases and address the burden that asthma creates. i look forward to continuing the work with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that add utilities and children -- adults and children can live without the scourge of asthma. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today to honor major
general r. mrtin arm berger. and his distinguished career in the military spans five decades and enlisted as a soldier in the indiana national guard in 1969. as secretary of state, i had the privilege to work with him to protect hoosiers working in the military by promoting and improving absentee voting processes. as indiana's th district representative, i have worked with him on legislation which would study the structure of our military and reserve components can be best utilized. he is one of the most accomplished generals in the country and valuable leader in indiana and u.s.a. he has led our national guard and served our nation and state with integrity and distinction over his military career.
i thank him for his selfless service and wish him well in his retirement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: i yield back the balance of my time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i rise to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to pay tribute to the life of joe galuski, a broadcaster who spent his years on radio. any topic presented to him, joe faithfully kept your community updated on latest local stories and provided us news from around the nation. joe is remembered by the thousands of listeners who tuned in on morning commutes and to hear him on football pre-game and post-game shows.
he was more than a radio host. he had the power to communicate and entertain and was a large target in many lives. he was a gracious and quick a joke. it could always be heard in his voice. he is loved by central new york a community he cared deeply about. his spirit as the voice of our community will not be forgotten by his family friends colleagues and listeners. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> today, i pay whomage on the legacy of a pay who resided in pennsylvania's 4th congressional district but served the nation with pride. as a businessman athlete and
true patriot. william thomas kershaw was a standout quarterback for lafayette college. after college, tom continued onto the nfl being signed by the philadelphia eagles, tom is known by his family and community as a great man. his quest to live a full life and raise a happy life despite his struggle with a.l.s. inspires everyone to live completely. tom physically may have left us on march 10 2015, but his soul, spirit and legacy will endure. to his wife and four children, on behalf of the commonwealth and nation, thank you. thank you for sharing tom's all too short but extremely meaningful life. i'm honored and humbled to be a
small part of the recognition of a truly great american. tom we wish you god speed. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mrs. mrs. napolitano: for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i request a special hour.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that the committee on veterans affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2496 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to extend the operation for the replacement of the existing department of veterans affairs medical center in denver, colorado to make improvements in the accountability act of 2014 and
for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? >> reserving the right to object, but i do not object. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perlmutter: thank you. i do want to thank my colleague from colorado concerning what will be a short time to continue negotiations to finish our hospital in the denver area. veterans, as we come into this memorial day weekend veterans in the rocky mountain westville waited 15 years for this hospital to be built. substantial construction has taken place, delays delivering good services, great services to our veterans. and we need to continue to move this along. and the fact that we're moving
beyond memorial day keeping this project going forward without mothballing it is a step in the right direction. mr. speaker, i ask the republican majority and the republican leadership to work with the v.a. to get this finished so we can provide the best medical care possible, similar to what ms. mcmorris was talking about. we need to finish this hospital as soon as possible. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman with dause his reservation. without objection, the bill is than grossed and read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015 the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. the chair will first hear from the gentleman from colorado. mr. coffman: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is now recognized. mr. westmoreland: that was quite an event there. nearly three years ago on september 11 and 12 2012, the united states facilities in benghazi, libya were the target of terrorist attacks. these attacks resulted in the deaths of four americans, sean smith, tyrone woods, glen department of homeland securityry and u.s. ambassador chris stevens as well as two other americans critically injured. close to memorial day, this
country can honor these individuals that gave their life and service not just for this country but for the freedom and democracy around the world to others. the gravity of the attacks raise serious questions regarding the u.s. presence in benghazi libya particularly as those questions related to the policies decisions and activities of the administration and relevant executive branch agencies before, during and after the attacks. for nearly two years, congress sought answers to these questions however the administration's valid responses exposed the limits encountered by our standing committees. these responses reveal a less than transparent accounting of the attacks. the house created with the support of our democratic colleagues the select committee on the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attacks in
benghazi, libya. everywhere i go mr. speaker, i have people ask me, what is taking so long? what is taking so long for us to get the facts about what happened in benghazi? we are going to do our best tonight to explain to the american people and to the public and to you, mr. speaker, why it has taken so long why it is requiring us to continue to subpoena and beg and plead for the information that we need to be able to deliver this report to this body and to the american people. . the speaker apointed me and six of my colleagues to the committee, the democratic leader appointed five democrats to the committee. we have been instructed to conduct an investigation across all a-l-l, all, events and
issue a report surrounding the september 11, 2012 terrorist attack in benghazi, libya. specifically, we're directed to investigate and report on all policies, decisions and activities that contributed to the attacks on the united states facilities in benghazi libya, on september 11 and 12, 2012, as well as those that affected the ability of the united states to prepare for those attacks. number two, all policies, decisions and activities to respond to and repeal the afacts on united states facilities in -- the attacks on united states facilities in benghazi, libya, on september 11 and september 12 2012, including efforts to rescue united states personnel. internal and external
communications about the attacks on benghazi libya on september 11 and september 12, 2012. number four accountability for policies and decisions relating to the security of facilities in benghazi, lib yarks and response rsh response to the attacks including individuals and entity responseable for those policies and decisions. number five, executive branch authorities' efforts to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of these attacks on the u.s. facilities in benghazi, libya, september 11 12 2012. number six, executive brambing activities and efforts to comply with congressional inquiries into the attacks in benghazi, libya, on september 11 and 12, 2012. recommendations for improving executive branch cooperation and compliance with congressional oversight and investigations. information related to lessons
learned from the attacks and executive branch activities and efforts to protect united states facilities and personnel abroad. and any other relevant issues relating to the attacks the response to the attacks, or the investigation by the house of representatives into the attacks. i think that number nine is a particularly relevant point. it dez, all other relevant issues. so that's one of the questions we have been receiving about, are we stepping out of bounds on what this committee was supposed to do? the answer is, absolutely not. using these instructions as a guide, the committee requested and reviewed a substantial volume of information that was previously produced to the house and new information never before produced to congress. the committee has reviewed more than 20,000 pages of emails and
documents produced by the state department never before released to congress. this new material includes emails that were sent to or received by the former secretary of state relevant to benghazi, as well as documents and emails that were part of the state department's accountability review board proceedings. in addition, hundreds of pages of emails never before seen by congress have been produced by the white house. the department of justice and the intelligence community have also produced documents never before seen by congress. further, the committee has interviewed executive branch personnel including survivors of the benghazi terror attacks none of whom have been interviewed by previous committees. the committee has also interviewed others who have been able to provide indispensable firsthand the tails of the u.s. presence in benghazi, libia. we know that this is not a
complete universe of information held by the exec tiff branch. our investigation has uncovered new witnesses, new documents and new facts related to the benghazi terror attacks. ironically the largest impediment to getting this investigation done in a timely manner and being able to write a final, definitive accounting of what happened before, during, and after the terrorist attacks in benghazi is the executive branch itself. the committee had issued letters, subpoenas, has threatened to hold and has held public compliance hearings with slow to littology no action at all. take the state department, for example. the state department's necessary focus of this investigation, yet their compliance posture with the committee and congress has proved unpredictable at best. when this committee has formed one year ago, the state department had yet to fully comply with two outstanding
subpoenas issued in 2013 by another committee. one subpoena dealt specifically with documents per training to the -- pertaining to the state department's accountability review board, known as the a.r.b. the other subpoena dealt with documents that had previously undergone limited congressional review where members access to the documents was restricted to certain dates and times set by the state department. these subpoenas were still legally binding on the state department when this committee was created. yet the department had not fulfilled them. in an effort to expedite the department's fulfillment of these subpoenas, the select committee prioritized the department's production of documents under these 2002 -- under these two subpoenas as opposed to issuing new requests. in addition, by directing the department to identify documents
under these existing subpoenas, the committee was better positioned to receive new documents in a more expeditious manner, while at the same time judiciously reviewing the work of past committees. these negotiations resulted in the state department providing 15,000 pages of new dock youments to the committee in august of -- in august and september of last year this production also fulfilled the department's obligation for one of the two subpoenas. the review of these documents was in -- enlightening both in what itties closed and what it did not. here's what it did disclose. for the first time, the department produced eight email eight. two are from former secretary clinton. additionally, the committee became aware that former secretary clinton had used a private email account to conduct official state department business.
importantly, the committee did not release the existence of the private email account because of its commitment to investigate all the facts in a fair and impartial manner. here's what it didn't disclose. from the review of the 15,000 pages however, the committee recognized that there was significant omissions in the documents. notably, there were very few emails between and among former secretary clinton's senior staff and the secretary. as a result, last november, the committee requested the state department produce specific documents in email -- and emails related to benghazi and libya for the secretary and 10 of her senior staff. in the two months following the committee's request, committee staff consistently relayed to the department that its new top priority was all of the sec re-- all of secretary clinton's emails. almost three months later on
february 13 2015, the department produced approximately 300 emails to and from the former secretary during her time as the head of the state department. remember, these emails of which the state department never possessed and didn't have to look for but yet it took that length of time. but they didn't produce a single document to the committee related to the remaining portions of the november requests. so what was the constituent department -- where was the state department during the time the former secretary was going through he emails. after they produced these email the constituent department asked what our priority was. we continued to inform them that the 10 senior officials identified in the november request were our priority, including sheryl mills jake sullivan, uma abedeen, and susan
rice. the state department told committee staff that this was too broad and it was unable to search for these documents. on march 4 2015, the committee issued a subpoena for the documents and emails first requested in november. this subpoena sought documents and emails for the 10 senior state department officials including those named previously. despite the committee indicating emails and documents from the subpoena were its top priority, the department informed the committee that it would instead begin producing documents pursuant to the outstanding a.r.b. subpoena. remember, this subpoena was first issued in august of 2013 and reissued on january 28, 2015 since it expired at the end of the previous congress. i would also point out that the law requires that these records
and this is the records from the a.r.b., and mr. speaker it's very important that you understand this, that the law says that these records shall be separated from all other records of the department of state and shall be maintained under appropriate safeguards to preserve the tftrble -- the confidentiality and classification of information. this means the record should have been sitting on a shelf somewhere easily identifiable. unfortunately it took them two years to find where this a.r.b. report was supposed to be segregated and put up. the committee continued to indicate that its priority was for the emails from the senior state department personnel that were first requested in november. the department's response -- it could not search for these documents. instead, the department ignored
the committee's request and on april 15, 2015, nearly two years after congress first issued a subpoena for the a.r.b. documents, the state department finally produced more than 1700 pages of documents related to the a.r.b. again, instead of responding to the committee's request on april 23 2015, the department produced an additional 250rks0 pages of documents related to the a.r.b. the department has said that with minor exceptions, it is now fulfilled the requirements of that subpoena. not withstanding the a.r.b. production, the committee continued to press the department. its top priority is the documents from the original november 2014, request and the march subpoena. the state department however, has done little but talk about the breadth of the subpoena and the inability to adequately
search for documents. the department continues to state that it does not have the technical capabilities to do such a wide search without specific search terms. yet, the department never used any search terms to conduct in its search nor has the department ever suggested any search terms to the committee. to help the committee better understand the department's technical capabilities or lack thereof, the committee has taken several different steps. we asked the state department to bring its technology expert and its records officer to a meeting to discuss how records were kept retrieved and produced. specifically, we requested a meeting in our -- and i quote work the relevant people from within the state department who can explain in detail how the state department maintains its records and how it has research for documents pursuant to this committee's november request.
in further detail the limitations of the department's inability to respond to the chairman's document request. these people would likely include individuals from legislative affairs, office of the legal advisor bureau of information resource management and possibly the records officer. in any other -- and any other individual who will be able to answer detailed questions on the topic this meeting will help us further sequence and prioritize the information and issues in the committee's request. as you suggested, we do in our letter of february 13, to chairman gowdy that the state department sent us. we also include a list of 13 questions -- questions to the department to help guide the discussion. samples of these questions include the size of the universe of potentially relevant hard copy and or electronic fill for
each person from the data range period. keyword or phrase searching the department plans to use for production. and any limitations imposed on the type of data to be searched. these are some pretty straightforward questions. when the state department appeared for the meet, they did not only bring the subject matter experts with them, the staff they did bring could not answer these questions. in fact, it was during this meeting for the first time that the committee learned that the state department was not in possession of former secretary's emails. . the committee again asked the department to meet with these individuals. the department did not provide them. at an april 10 meeting between committee staff and the department, the state department brought an individual. yet when pressed by committee staff on these specific questions, the department refused to provide the specific answers.
last week we continued the pressure. we told the department that members of the committee, including myself, would travel to the state department to view firsthand how they searched for documents and have a discussion about the shortcomings they claim to have. but what did the department do that we told them we were coming. they scrambled and did everything possible to deter our visit. earlier this week, we did learn more about the department's internal process for identifying and reviewing documents but we did get this information from the department. we had to learn it from a lawsuit. this past week on may 18, the state department's acting director for information programs and services, filed a sworn declaration in the freedom of information lawsuit. that declaration outlined the steps that the state department had taken since it received
55,000 of emails from clinton to review those documents for public release under the freedom of information rules. also in that sworn statement, the state department asserted that it had dick -- dedicated on a full-time basis a project manager, two case analysts to review all 55,000 pages of emails since april. these 12 individuals are precisely the 12 f.t.e. positions that were recently funded by the state department's 2.5 million reprogramming request. let me say that again. the state department repeatedly claimed to the committee that a lack of staff and other sources -- resources prevented them. so the committee supported the reallocation of funds to enable the state department to hire
additional staff to work on document production to provide to this committee. however, we continued to press the state department for answers. last month, we went so far to put in writing 27 specific questions the state department needed to answer regarding its ability to produce documents to the committee and the use of the private email account by secretary clinton. these were simple questions that fell into three simple categories. these categoriesr the state department's initial approval, if any of secretary clinton's email server arrangement. the state department's knowledge about this email server arrangement, attempt to retrieve her emails and lack of candor by the department towards the committee despite the committee's persistent requests for these emails. and number three details of the
department's review of her emails to ensure the department is sending resources to respond to our request. yet, here we are more than one month later and the department hasn't even been able to answer a single one of the 27 questions in writing. in addition we have attempted on multiple occasions to direct the department towards specific key documents that we are after. we have prioritized our subpoena from 10 names down to four names and then again down to three names. we have prioritized documents, the dates from two years down to one year down to three months. but again, here we are, 2 1/2 months after we issued a subpoena and six months after we first sent the letter and the department has still not produced any of these priority documents.
first, we moved afoot then we moved a yard and now we have moved our position one mile but the state department is not budging one inch. mr. speaker, i would just like to show a little chart that shows the noncompliance that the state department has done so far. on 11/18 of 2014, the question requested 10 senior official documents and emails requested. response, nothing. on 12/17 we got a response. let's meet. no documents produced. 2/13 of 2015, state produced clinton emails acquired from her attorney. 3/4, 2015, we subpoenaed the documents and emails for the 10 senior officials. state department response, let's
meet. no documents produced. 3/26, 2015, three outstanding requests 10 senior official documents and emails and server questions. 4/10 briefing on document retention policies and procedures. no documents produced. 4/14, compliance needed on both subpoenas. 4/15, part of a.r.b. documents produced two years after requested. 4/18, two subpoenas outstanding. full a.r.b. come flines and documents and emails of 10 senior officials. 4/22 subpoenas outstanding for full a.r.b. compliance and documents for 10 senior officials. state response just beginning to assess volume of emails. no documents produced.
4/24 2015, response second part of a.r.b. documents produced two years after requested. 4/27 2015, reminder of priority of 10 senior officials. 4/29, response, estimate given for volume of emails for two of the 10 senior officials. no documents produced. 5/4, 2015, lack of compliance on document request is unacceptable. response from the state department, state response but fails to identify any steps to produce documents. no documents produced. mr. speaker we have done everything we know to do to get these documents so we can finish this investigation. i don't know that anybody has any more right to know what has gone on than the american people
and especially those families of those four great americans that lost their lives. the only thing holding us up from getting a definitive report of those actions before during and after those attacks is this executive branch and their department of state. we are begging them and as we have said before, we have moved an inch a foot, a yard, we've moved a mile and they have not moved one iota, and our request of them is to listen and give us the documents and let us finish this report. with that, mr. speaker i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
minority leader. without objection. mr. levin: it has been over 12 years since the last debate over trade promotion authority, the last time we considered the role of congress in trade negotiations. much has changed since then. the world is changed. trade negotiations have changed. and the role of congress in trade negotiations has changed. we all recognize that trade can
be beneficial. the issue is not whether congress could pass an econ 101 class. as president bush council of economic advisers recently put it, the issue is whether we are going to face up to the fact that our trading system today is much more complex than the simplistic trade model presented in econ 101 class. a growing number of prominent economists today recognized those complexities. from nobel lawyer yachts -- laureates, but too many want to pretend the question of a trade agreement is a no-brainer.
as the professor suggests or that the benefits of trade, in quotes, flows from the classic theory of trade, first expounded by david ricardo in 1817 in a report of may 2015. because as charles craut hammer recently wrote in quotes the law of comparative advantage has held up nicely for 198 years, end of quotes. what do they have to say about the inclusion of investor settlements in trade agreements? nothing, to my knowledge or a 12 year monopoly for the sale of biologic medicines, to ensure that our trading partners meet basic labor and environmental standards, how about the issue
of currency manipulation. what does the theory of comparative advantage have to say about those issues? absolutely nothing, and yet those are the issues at the crux of the t.p.p. negotiations. how do the old ideas fall short? let me mention a few examples. first as was pointed out recently, 19th century economics and the theory of comparative advantage assumed a fixed level of technology no technological changes and full employment. those assumptions don't fit very well in today's world. second one of the most critical economic issues facing our country today is growing inequality and a stagnant middle class. many trade economists believe that trade contributes to that
inequality. some try to downplay that fact by pointing out that other factors may contribute more to the problem, as if that means we should not worry about the impact trade is having. consider this from danny roderick a harvard university economist. and i quote, the gains from trade are rather paltry compared to the redistribution of income. in the u.s. where tariffs are below 5%, a move to complete free trade would reshuffle more than $50 of income among different groups for each dollar of efficiency or net gain created. we are talking about $50 of redistribution for every one dollar of aggregate gain. it's as if $50 to adam only to
leave david $50 poor. it is expected that t.p.p. will have a small but positive impact on u.s. economic growth. 1300's of 1% by 2025. he notes that trade contributes to growing economic inequality in the united states, with estimates arranging from 10% to 50% of the total inequality growth. when he combines these two concepts, g.d.p. growth but rising inequality from trade he concludes, and i quote, under any reasonable assumptions about the effect of trade on inequality the median wage earner and therefore the majority of workers suffer a net loss as a result of these trade
agreements, end of quotes. in other words, the economic climb may grow slightly as a result of our trade agreements but the average american worker gets a smaller slice of that pie. . similarly the brookings institution published a paper. they found a trade and globalization accounts for the vast majority of labor's declining share of income in the united states over the past 25 years. specifically they found that, and i quote increases in import exposure of u.s. businesses can explain about 3.3 percentage points of the 3.9 percentage point decline in the u.s. payroll share over the past quarter century, end of quotes.
this underscores that the substance of the trade agreements the international rules matter. our trade agreements must be designed to shape trade, to spread its benefits more broadly. third, we need to stop pretending that trade only has benefits and few costs. we need to stop talking exclusively about exports and down playing the negative impact that somehow imports have as the council of economic advisors did in a recent paper. of course imports can help to lower prices for manufacturing -- for manufacturers and consumers, but lower prices don't do you much good if you have lost your job or seen your wage decline or stagnate. again as it was said, i quote
it's true that the benefits outweigh the costs. leading to the argument that winners can compensate losers. but in america, winners rarely compensate losers. more often than not, the winners attempt to trounce the losers. the old economic models are based in part on trade between countries with similar economic structures. this is no longer the case. the 12 parties involved in the t.p.p. negotiations, accounting for 40% of the world g.d.p. include economies ranging from some of the world's largest market oriented economies to some of the smallest least developed command economies. we have never been able to establish a level playing field with japan. after decades of trying and
multiple agreements to solve various problems and the japanese market stands virtually closed today in key areas like agriculture and automobiles. we have never negotiated a free trade agreement with a communist country like vietnam where state-owned enterprises are a major concern and the communist party and the once so-called labor union are one and the same. the issues involved in trade negotiations have also changed dramatically. we no longer have simply negotiating of trade levels. as professor jeff sax of columbia university said recently. both t.p.p. and t tip would be better described as multinational business agreements involving three
distinct areas -- international trade, cross border investment and international business regulation. the t.p.p. negotiations cover a range of subjects far beyond those negotiated in any previous multilateral negotiation, concerning everything from intellectual property and access to medicines torques financial regulations food safety measures, basic labor and environmental standards, cross board data flows and state-owned enterprises. so the economics of trade, they have changed. and the trade negotiations themselves have changed. and so too, has the congressional role. in recent years some of us have had to take it upon ourselves to
rewrite the rules of trade negotiations. in 2006 when the democrats took the majority in the u.s. house, we made it clear to the bush administration that we were not going to consider the panama colombia, and -- free trade agreements as negotiated. each would need to be fixed. charles rangel and i worked with our house democratic colleagues to co-author what became known as the may 10 agreement on labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. for the first time fully enforceable labor and environmental standards would be placed in our trade agreements on equal footing with every other commercial provision. the may 10 agreement also included important provisions on medicines investment, and government procurement. after decades of leading the
fight to consider to include worker rights provisions and trade agreements i considered at the time and still do today the may 10 agreement to be a major breakthrough. in the case of our trade agreements with peru, panama, and colombia their labor laws were changed to come into compliance with i.l.o. standards before the congress voted. and then in 2011 with the korea f.t.a., working on a bipartisan basis with then chairman dave camp and with ford motor and the u.a.w., we urged the administration, the obama administration, to go back and renegotiate the specific automotive opening measures with korea. and they did so. helping to garner broad bipartisan support in congress.
we established the foundation for progressive trade policy. we saw the value of intense congressional involvement. to improve trade agreements. we want to make sure it is built upon not eroded. so now we are facing the largest multilateral trade negotiations since the uruguay round. the t.p.p. has the potential to raise standards and open new markets for u.s. businesses workers, and farmers. or wheat standards, uncompetitive practices, and a system that does not spread the benefits of trade affecting the paychecks of american families. once the u.s. lowers its tariffs as broadly as contemplated in t.p.p., we will no longer have the leverage to bring about lasting change in
other countries. in january, i described what i believed to be an effective way to resolve outstanding issues in the t.p.p. negotiateations. i -- negotiations. i believe that achieving these outcomes could lead to a landmark t.p.p. agreement worthy of major bipartisan support and mind. unfortunately, in four months none of these suggestions have been taken on by our negotiators. and unfortunately, the hatch trade promotion authority fails to put t.p.p. on the right track or to help congress do so. chairman ryan and senator cruz wrote an op-ed entitled, and i quote, putting congress in charge on trade, end of quotes. senator hatch declared t.p.a. to
include in quotes, strict negotiating objectives that gives the american people a voice on trade priorities. but saying it is so doesn't make it so. on all the major issues in the negotiateations, the negotiating objectives are object so light or -- obsolete or woefully inadequate. they are basically a wish list. even worse, at the end of the negotiation t.p.a. allows the president to certify whether his own moshtors achieve the wish list. and the provisions relating to congressional withdrawal of t.p.a. are meaningless. they are never going to be used because they are unusable. the hatch-wide -- hatch-wyden t.p.a. gives us congressional
leverage at exactly the wrong time. instead of pressing u.s. to get a better agreement or signaling to our negotiating partners that congress will only accept an agreement that ensures reciprocity and helps to spread the benefits of trade, the hatch-wyden-ryan t.p.a. puts congress in the back seat and greases the skids for an up or down vote after the fact. real congressional power is not at the end of the process. it's right now when the critical outstanding issues are being negotiated. we must meaningfully address currency manipulation. protracted large-scale official one way intervention and currency markets to weaken a currency for the purpose of
boosting exports and limiting imports. currency man national park plays has cost the u.s. -- manipulation has cost the u.s. millions of jobs over the past decade and a half. many people have had trouble finding new jobs or had to accept jobs at lower wages. china manipulated its currency most dramatically in this time period. accumulating the largest stock of foreign exchange reserves the world has ever known. in early episodes, japan south korea, and others manipulated their currency on a protracted grand scale. japan's currency manipulation and other trieding distorting practices -- trading distorting practices kept its auto and other markets closed, while japan had access to a very open u.s. market.
this one-way trade decimated the u.s. tool and dye industry and seriously injured other segments of the auto industry, including u.s. auto makers themselves. the international monetary fund has upto date guidelines that define currency manipulation and are intended to prevent it. there is nothing wrong with the spirit or even the letter of those guidelines. 7 unfortunately, -- unfortunately, the i.m.f. cannot enforce those guidelines because currency manipulators are able to essentially stall action in that form. arguments that prohibiting currency manipulation on t.p.p. is impossible for technical or political reasons remind us of previous claims about trade agreements not being able to help defend, force or discourage child labor.
for example, some people prominent people, have asserted that u.s. monetary policy would put at risk if currency are included in t.p.p. i responded to that argument in a highly detailed blog months ago. mr. speaker i'd like to include that in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: i have seen no serious rebuttal to the points i made in that post. or to similar and related posts -- points made by simon johnson, fred burkeston and many other notable economists ranging from art to paul krugman. nevertheless, those who oppose currency disciplines continue to raise this false argument. t.p.p. should address instances in which countries buy large amounts of foreign assets over long periods of time to prevent
an appreciation of their exchange rate despite running a large current surplus. the federal reserve does not engage in such practices. that is why the u.s. already agreeed to an even -- and even insisted upon what is in the current i.m.f. guidelines. and now there is claim that including currency disciplines in t.p.p. would be a poison pill and that our trading partners would walk away from the table. there is no way to accurately judge this issue until it is properly brought to the negotiating table. to the contrary, the fact that the administration says this only creates the risk of a self-fulfilling prophecy. it is irresponsible to make this claim. indeed, our trading partners in t.p.p. would greatly benefit
from these disciplines. many of them are the victims of manipulation in every bit as much as we are a progressive trade agreement for workers and the middle class must address currency manipulation which has caused millions of job losses and continued to wage stagnation over the past decade. president obama is right, that we should write the rules and not accept the status quo. . but if we fail to address currency manipulation, we are essentially letting china break the rules and accepting an unacceptable status quo. it is vital our trade balance have strong intellectual property rights and access to
affordable life-saving medicines. absence a change in course, the final t.p.p. text is likely to provide less access to affordable medicines than provided under the may 10 agreement. my staff has just reviewed a new version of the text that raises some serious new questions. but even the last version of the text raised serious concerns. for example developing countries would likely be required to graduate to more restrictive intellectual property rights standards before they become developed, a clear inconsistent si -- inconsistency with may 10. and the t.p.p. will restrict medicines in the u.s. and other developed countries by
encouraging second patents on similar products, by having longer data for biological med sips by allowing drug companies to challenge government pricing and reimbursement decisions. a coalition of 17 international development organizations recently said, and i quote t.p.p. would do more to undermine access to affordable medicines than any previous u.s. trade agreement and the intellectual property provisions in t.p.p. reverse the positive steps undertaken in the agreement of 2007 and thus are a step backwards for public health. and the foundation for aids research said this, our gains, and i quote in reducing h.i.v. infections would never had
realized if the proposed provisions under the t.p.p. were the intellectual property standard in 2001 end of quotes. for most of the past 15 years our trade deficit with japan has been second only to our deficit with china. and over 2/3 of the current deficit is in auto motive products. japan has the most closed market of any industrial country despite repeated efforts by u.s. negotiators over decades to open it. at a minimum, the u.s. should not open its market further to japanese imports through the phaseout of tariffs until we have time to see whether japan has truly opened its market. the administration has not stated a specific period of time
for when the phaseout would begin or when they would end. the parties are also still working to address certain nontariff barriers that japan utilizes to close their markets. the t.p.a. bill states that the u.s. should in quotes expand competitive market opportunities for export of goods, end of quotes. such a broad objective provides no guidance regarding how to truly open the japanese auto market. on the related issue of rules of origin, there are a number of rules of origin being negotiated in the t.p.p. for different products including the sensitive textile, apparel and auto sectors. some of the rules are largely settled, while others including
the rules for auto products remain open and controversial. rules of origin define the extent to which imports from outside the t.p.p. region for example, china, can be incorporated into an end product for that product to still be entitled to preferential duty, free treatment under the agreement. the rules should be restrictive enough to ensure that the benefits of the agreement accrue to the parties through the agreement. the auto rule of origin in t.p.p. should be at least as stringent as the rule in nafta given the t.p.p. involves all three of the nafta countries, plus nine others. the hatch-wyden t.p.p. bill provides no guidance whatsoever on any rule of origin on any
product in the t.p.p. negotiations. it appears the u.s. and japan will agree that japan will reduce tariffs but never eliminate them on hundreds of agricultural products far more carveouts than any other u.s. trade agreement in the past. canada, on the other hand has not put any offer on the table for dairy products, which is causing some concern in the dairy. reducing or eliminating tariffs on agricultural products. thus even japan's opening offer to reduce but never eliminate tariffs on nearly 600 products satisfies this objective, demonstrating that it is meaningless. the t.p.p. negotiations are taking a different approach on
environment than we did in the may 10 agreement. and in our f.d.a.'s peru panama and colombia where we stated that each country was obligated to implement seven multi lateral agreements. they are trying to build the same obligations from scratch and we still do not know if they have succeeded. words like endeavor and taking steps to, are not going to lead to the revolutionary changes we have been told to expect. the president said at nike recently that the t.p.p. environmental chapter would, and i quote, help us do things that haven't been done before, end of quotes. actually we have done these things before. on may 10, peru including a special annex on deforestation.
it needs more vigorous act. the t.p.a. bill is obsolete in providing instructions since the t.p.p. is already taking a different approach. the t.p.a. bill also does not address whether or how climate change issues should be handled in t.p.p., an issue raised by other countries in the t.p.p. negotiations. there are now more cases of private investors challenging environmental, health and other regulations in nations, even nations with strong and independent judicial systems and rules of law. just last month just last month an investor won a nafta isda case which the government of nova scotia denied a permit
in an environmentally sensitive area. other investments dispute involve plain pack acknowledging products of tobacco products in australia, aimed at protecting public health and pharmaceutical requimets in canada. this issue is receiving heightened scrutiny among negotiators and from a broad range of interested parties. some of our t.p.p. partners do not support isda or seeking safeguards to ensure that nations reserve their right to regulate, the cato institute and the government of germany, the birth place, has also recently expressed concerns about isds. as far back as 2007 when the may 10 agreement was reached, we recognized growing concerns over
investments in isdz and insisted that our agreements include new language clarifying that the investment obligations in those agreements were not intended to provide foreign investors with greater substantive rights than investors have under u.s. law. over the past few years, our concerns over the investment texan isdz have become even greater. nevertheless, our negotiators have refused to include the may 10 language in t.p.p. and the text of the investment chapter in t.p.p. is basically the same model as adopted 10 years ago. even though conditions have changed dramatically this the past 10 years and calls for changes to or elimination of the chapter have intensified. despite proposals to include new
safeguards in the isdz members of the committee nism, the administration has not made any attempts to incorporate them. the hatch-wyden negotiating objective is the same as it was 12 years ago and again is obsolete. t.p.a. does not ensure compliance by t.p.p. parties that have labor laws and practices that fall short of international standards contained in the may 10 agreement. even though t.p.p. is expected to include the may 10 language. vietnam presents the greatest challenge we have ever had in ensuring compliance. workers are prohibited from joining any independent union, independent of the communist
party. while the administration is discussing these issues with vietnam. member of stakeholders and advisers have not seen any proposal to address these critical areas. on a recent trip to vietnam, i met a woman who had been thrown in jail for four years for trying to organize workers into an independent union. we cannot simply have the right written obligation in the agreement and expect that some future dispute panel is going to ensure meaningful change on the ground for workers. the administration has not committed to ensuring that all changes to laws and regulations are made before congress votes, as was true with peru panama and colombia.
the administration also does not make available to members of congress any consistency plan they are discussing with vietnam, so we can evaluate the changes to vietnamese laws and practices they are seeking. but from what i understand any plan will fall far short of bringing vietnam into compliance with basic standards as required under the may 10 agreement. for example i am concerned that vietnam may refuse to allow unions to form, a clear inconsistency with the standards. our negotiators have refused to accept our suggestion that an independent panel be established from the beginning to ensure compliance with labor obligations and expedite the dispute. without such a structure, future cases will need to be built from scratch by outside groups and
submitted to the u.s. government, a process which has taken several years for the department of labor to act on in honduras and guatemala. the president said recently that vietnam, and i quote, would even have to protect workers' freedoms to form unions for the first time end of quote. but the t.p.p. that the u.s. team is negotiating seems far from ensuring those words will become real. mexico also has a long way to go. and americans know that mexico competes in manufacturing. according to professor shaker at u.c. berkley and i quote, under nafta the auto industry in mexico has grown rapidly and it is in the midst of unprecedented expansion. mexico assembled over three
million vehicles in 2013 more than canada and exported over 80% of them, mostly to the u.s. global auto makers plan to invest $6.8 billion in mexico between 2013 and 2015. as a result, mexico is on track to become the leading source of imported vehicles for the u.s. market by 2015, surpassing both canada and mexico. moreover mexico exported 44.8 billion in auto parts to the u.s. last year, more than japan korea and germany combined, end of quotes. . the wage rate of mexico is about 20% of a comparable rate in the u.s. the administration likes to say that t.p.p. will renegotiate
nafta. i'm all for that, but again, words in the agreement are not enough. mexico has to change their laws and their practices. for example they have to get rid of so-called protection contracts that serve to block real representation in the workplace. and they need to fundamentally reform or replace the conciliation and arbitration boards that are responsible for resolving disputes over workplace representation and other labor issues. this is vitally important because u.s. workers compete directly with mexican workers in critical manufacturing and other sectors. while i understand the administration has start the conversations with mexico, i am not informed of any consistency plan that would detail the changes mexico needs to make to
their laws. t.p.p. are also negotiating s.o.e.'s countries that rely heavily on state controlled and state funded enterprises are able to give those champions an enormous and unfair advantage over private companies to compete against them in the marketplace. the t.p.p. would include disciplines on s.o.e.'s that are expected in language to go anything -- to go beyond anything we have ever included in past agreements. but the extent to which an s.o.e. provision will help to level the playing field will be determined by the degree to which parties seek very broad country specific carve outs for particular s.o.e.'s. as concerning, the definition of s.o.e.'s is too narrow allowing enterprises that are effectively
controlled by foreign governments where the government owns less than 50% of the shares to circumvent the obligations. there are several other t.p.p. issues that need to be addressed. food safety is one of them. there's a very broad consensus that enough resources are being devoted to ensure the safety of our imports. what are we going to do about this issue? it is a real issue in the debate. unfortunately specific portions of the negotiations and the shortcomings in t.p.p. are often difficult to discuss because the documents are claire -- classified. i have not argued that the entire negotiations should be open to the public. i understand that in a wide
range of context from peace negotiations to labor negotiations it is widely assumed that negotiations at times need to be held behind closed doors. and at this point i'm not convinced the trade negotiations are different. but negotiators need to communicate frequently and effectively with stakeholders to ensure that they are seeking the right provisions in negotiations. in a number of respects, our negotiators were not doing that when the t.p.p. negotiateations were in the early or even not so early stages. thanks to pressure, constant pressure from members of congress over the past several years we have made some progress in this regard. for example, just a couple years ago they refused to share the bracketed text, laying out the positions of various parties with any member of congress. we got them to change that.
much more recently they refused to let staff from personal officials assist their members with the text even where the staff member had top secret security clearance. we got that -- them to change that. still, there remain unreasonable and burdensome restrictions on access to the text. for example, congress created a system of stakeholders advisors many years ago to provide advice to our negotiators and to congress on the negotiateations. but those advisors still can only see u.s. negotiating proposals. they cannot see the proposals or our trading partners. it is very difficult if not impossible for them to provide negotiating advice if they can't know what the other side is seeking. moreover personal office staff with top security clearances
still cannot see a negotiating text until the member is present. so let me say a few more words about this. i am not at all confident that our negotiators are sharing with members of congress or the stakeholders all of the text that our -- that are being exchanged with other t.p.p. countries. for example, we know our negotiators, as i have said, have been discussing a labor consistency plan with vietnam for many months at least now for many months. but there is still no text for members of congress to review. this is one of the major issues in t.p.p., yet there is no text to review. despite the fact that ustr told
us for at least a year now that negotiations were nearly complete. at a recent meeting to discuss vietnam, it was classified so the status of negotiations on this issue cannot be discussed publicly. many of us left less confident that there has been any progress in the negotiations. or take currency manipulation. for years literally we have pressed what the administration's position is on the issuement given the majorities in both the house and senate have urged that strong and enforceable currency disciplines be included in t.p.p. for years the administration said it was still deliberating on the issue and had no answer. now when pushed through the t.p.a. debate in congress, the administration claims that they could not possibly include enforceable disciplines in
t.p.p. because they would be a poison pill. finally, i don't understand why the administration is selectively able to reveal to the public certain aspects that they think the public will like but those of us who have concerns cannot reveal them. we have examples of officials revealing to the press very specific things from the negotiating text like when tariffs will be eliminated on a particular product. in my view as to the environmental chapter, the problem with that chapter is that many of the verbs used in those obligations the essence of the commitments are very weak. i presumably can't tell what you those verbs are. so one has a hard time understanding the rationale for this process. the way it has been handled by
the administration does not make members and other key parties real participants with a meaningful role understanding and impacting decisions undertaken in this important negotiation. let me say a word regarding an issue that has come up recently. in addition to falling short and getting t.p.p. on the right track, the t.p.a. bill also presents dangers with other agreements. this t.p.a. essentially will be in place for six years. it gives the president a great deal of latitude in deciding which agreements to negotiate, with whatever trading partners the president wants, and covering whatever subject the president wants. recently elizabeth warren drew heavy criticism for expressing the concern that t.p.a. could be
used by a republican president to undermine dodd-frank. the concern was dismissed as speculative and desperate. but as explained below, the concern is genuine and legitimate. in ongoing trade negotiations to establish a t tip european officials, u.s. and european bangs, and some congressional republicans have expressed an interest in harmonizing a u.s. and e.u. financial services in a way that would water down u.s. laws and regulations. similarly, some republican presidential candidates have expressed an interest in weakening or repealing dodd-frank, although not simply through the t.p.p. -- t tip negotiations. of course doing so through t tip
would require the president the excuse that agreeing to weaken dodd-frank was simply part of a quid pro quo to get something that we wanted from europe. according to -- an article in politico, in quotes white house and protrade officials on the hill say that fast track bill currently before congress includes language that expressly forbids changing u.s. law without congressional action. but this language is nothing new. legislation to implement trade agreements typically include similar language. the purpose of the language is simply to make clear that under u.s. law our trade agreements do not have direct effect and are not self-executing. meaning that domestic laws and regulations need to be amended to give effect to any obligation
in an international agreement. implementing bills typically make changes to u.s. tariff laws to comply with tariff obligations for trade agreements. some implementing bills make more substantial behind the border changes to u.s. laws to comply with the obligations in our trade agreements. that's been true of changes to u.s. patent laws, changes to the immigration and nationality act. with all of these concerns in mind, and above all my determination to do everything i can to get t.p.p. in shape to garner broad bipartisan support in congress, the ways and means committee offered a substitute, we democrats, during the mark up of the t.p.a. bill. that amendment, the right track for t.p.p., includes negotiating
instructions not merely negotiating objectives like the t.p.a. bill. on each of the 12 major outstanding issues. some of which i have described earlier. it provides that the president will not get an up or down vote unless and until congress determines that the instructions have been followed. it also includes real mechanisms to ensure that a poorly negotiated t.p.p. agreement will not be placed on fast track. regrettably our substitute was blocked in committee based on a highly questionable procedural determination from the chair. in essence while the republican majority was free to mark up a bill that was in both the jurisdiction of our committee and the rules committee, we were denied the right to do the very same thing. our chair was concerned about stepping on the jurisdiction of the rules committee and yet the
rules committee has waived jurisdiction over the t.p.a. bill. as often the case with trade debates, they become about something they are not. this debate is not about being for t.p.p. or against. i am for the right t.p.p. and that is why i want congress to be in a position to press negotiators to secure a better outcome. this debate is not about letting china right the rules. -- write the rules. i wrote the amendments to the bill granting china in the opinion of the chair to -- permanent normal trade relations to try to ensure china did not right the rules when they entered the w.t.o. this debates is not about isolationism. neither i nor any colleague of mine is arguing that we should pull up the draw bridge and isolate ourselves. indeed, most of us currently -- who oppose t.p.a. right now
demonstrated on a broad range of issues that we are internationalists, perhaps more so than those who support t.p.a. this debate is not about national security or the pivot ott -- pivot to asia. i understand the national security issues. indeed what happened was years ago wilbur mills said, let's take trade negotiations out of the state department and put them in ustr in order to be sure that the economic advantages were not traded away for political advantage. . in the world today i don't see how a trade agreement can be in our national security interests if it isn't in our economic interests. 50 years when the u.s. was an economic superpower unlike any
nation in the world, maybe we could grant our trading partners disproportionate and nonreciprocal conditions in exchange for political advantages that's what wilbur mills said. that's not the case today. our economic security is critical to our national security. proponents of t.p.a. are trying to sell t.p.a. by selling t.p.p. that is the problem. t.p.p. is not yet on the right track and not earned the most aggressive trade history. the best course for congress is to withhold fast track until we know t.p.p. is on a better course. to press the administration to work with us and really respond to our concerns by changing the course of negotiations. to send a signal to our
negotiating partners that the congress has set a high bar for negotiations, that we are demanding the best deal in a number of areas. i think these countries will welcome the improvements i have suggested. at the end of the day the goal is to achieve a transpacific partnership worthy of support. a t.p.p. that spreads the benefits of trade to the broadest swath of the american public and addresses trade's negative impacts. that's really what this negotiation is all about. this is what really, really very much motivates my concern to get t.p.p. right. not to give away our leverage until t.p.p. is correct. voting now for t.p.a. when there
is so much yet to be done to make t.p.p. right essentially gives away our leverage, essentially is a kind of a blank check to the administration. i feel so deeply about the importance of trade, the importance of getting it right that i really urge that that should be our focus. so i urge my colleagues not to vote for t.p.a. until t.p.p. is done correctly. that is the challenge before us. that is the challenge likely to be before the house of representatives the week after next. that's a challenge that we must surmount. that is a challenge that we must meet. that is a reflection of the years of many of us in trying to make trade be put on the right track.
that motivated us years ago when we put together the may 10 agreement. that motivated us when we negotiated that agreement with peru. we who negotiated it. that's our dedication. we support trade when expanded trade is shaped so that all benefit. that is not true today of this t.p.p. and therefore, i hope my colleagues will join together in voting no on t.p.a. until t.p.p. is done right. that is our goal. that is our purpose. that is our only purpose. and i think that is our challenge. and i hope the week after next, we are going to meet it. i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mooney,
for 30 minutes. mr. mooney: thank you mr. speaker. america is a beacon of hope and opportunity to the world for a reason. our military veterans who know whom we honor this monday during memorial day put their lives on the line for our freedoms and constitutional rights. our founders put in place a constitution that is inspired by the fundamental judeo christian belief with the right to life, property, freedom to worship and carry out their religious convictions without government interference or persecution.
we may take this idea for granted today with 250 years of history at our backs, but at the time of our nation's founding, the idea of religious freedom was radical. the world was a different place then. god-fearing peaceful citizens around the world were commonly persecuted for their beliefs. they were tortured and thrown in prison without a fair hearing and in short they didn't have freedom. these are rights and freedoms we take for granted. they were denied to be basic human rights. so at great risk to themselves and their families, but with deeply held optimism for a new and better future, they sailed the atlantic ocean for the shores of the new world for america. and here, they planted a new society based on freedom.
centuries later, we in this legislative body are the guardians of this legacy. we are here to advance freedom and protect liberty. but we must be vigilant in this task. president reagan once said, freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. we didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream, it must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the united states when men were free. i agree with president reagan and that's why i rise today. our basic freedoms are under attack. we must stand up and fight. we don't need to search long to find the wreckage of society
that does not value freedom. i recently met with a group of constituents who are live in charleston, west virginia and many of them have loved ones in syria. their stories provide a strong warning to us. in syria, a cruel and brutal dictator, assad is attempting to silence opposing views, and has resorted to chemical weapon attacks on his own people and has gunned down his own citizens, he has bombed hospitals and apartment complexes full of women and children. we can learn an important message from syria. once tyranny grabs hold, it will grow and keep its reach. in syria four out of five people live in poverty a million wounded and more than three million have fled the country. but we should not be so arrogant as to think that our liberties
here at home in the united states are safe. the evidence that our basic freedoms are under siege is growing, and i would like to share just a few stories that have recently come to my attention. for example, an eight-year-old second grade student in a new jersey public school wanted to sing "awesome god" at her after-school talent show but was told she couldn't because of the song's religious lyrics. the pastor of a church in arizona, according to "the arizona republic" reported this in july of 2012, this pastor was jailed and fined $12,000 for hosting a bible study meeting in his private home. they claimed it outrageously claimed it violated fire and zoning code ordinances. five men in richmond were threatened with arrest by law
enforcement officers by sharing their faith on a public sidewalk. the university of missouri threatened to withhold a student's dip plomea because she refused to participate in a class assignment that required her to write a letter to the missouri legislature in promotion of homosexual adoption. in a new york hospital, a pro-life nurse was coerced into providing a late-term abortion, even though her workplace agreed in writing to honor her religious beliefs. in the beautiful second district of west virginia which i have the honor of representing, joe holland, a business owner, is currently being pushed to violate his religious views and values by an obamacare legislation that requires him to provide abortion drugs to his employees, a regulation commonly
known as the h.h.s. mandate and requires him to provide the drugs or face a penaltyy $100 per employee. that is about $5.5 million a year or $36,000 per employee. these are just a few of the alarming stories about the religious freedoms of peaceful god-fearing americans being snatched away by a government that has lost its way. it's no thing that the very first amendment to the united states constitution says, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof or abridging their freedom of speech or of the press or thite of the people peacebly to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. religious freedom was protected in the first amendment to the
constitution. our forefathers valued that, and they knew what would happen if we didn't protect our religious freedom. we must take action and recommit ourselves to this basic right. congress has taken action in the past on a bipartisan basis. in 1993, congress passed the religious freedom restoration act signed by president clinton. the law says the government should not force anyone to violate their sincere religious beliefs, whether those beliefs are considered widely shared or not. this legislation unanimously passed this chamber, united states house of representatives and it passed the senate by a vote of 97 to 3 on october 27, 1993. the broad support is because the legislation simply affirms our constitutionly endowed rights.
but now support for this formerly bipartisan widely supported law is eroding to the point that it has come under attack around the country. the recent events in indiana being the recent high profile example. i believe that this congress must be a congress of action in defending religious freedom. i understand that my good friend and colleague from idaho is working on a bill to protect institutions and individuals who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. i support this effort and i look forward to being an original co-sponsor when he introduces the bill. i am also a proud co-sponsor of the child welfare provider inclusion act, which will ensure that adoption and foster care providers are not excluded by states for offering their services based on their religious beliefs. unfortunately, some states have
already begun punishing faith-based organizations from providing -- that provide these services because of their religious beliefs. these religious freedom protections are needed now. and i hope there will be a vote in this chamber. we can't do this alone. we do need the president, president obama to join with us to protect religious freedom. the president said on june 26 of 2013 regarding the u.s. supreme court decision to strike down the defense of marriage act, the following about religious freedom, quote on an issue as sensitive as this knowing that americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply-held beliefs, maintaining our nation's commitment to religious freedom is also vital. if the president really believes that religious freedom is, quote, vital, he must back his words up with action.
that hasn't happened. in fact, just the opposite has occurred. with the administration's attack on the religious freedom restoration act, to tax those who believe those in religious freedom and he is not attacking religious freedom. we have to do it here. we have an obligation to pass on to our children and grandchildren a country that has the same love for liberty and religious freedom as the one we inherited. but this won't happen on its own. we need to stand up and fight. with courage and conviction, fight right here and right now. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. .