tv US House of Representatives Special Orders CSPAN September 22, 2016 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT
to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: let me first of all say i appreciate chairman royce's consideration of my feedback during the markup and -- and know he's well intentioned with this measure. as he mentioned, i believe that the underlying legislation was too broad. it could have been interpreted as a ban on any payment, including wire transfers, check or cash. this does improve the bill. but i don't like sending money to iran, but if we ban any payments to iran, we would be violating our obligations under the algiers accords. . specific changes in this bill narrow the banned payments to cash and precious metals. no matter how we pay money to iran, whether cash or wire transfer, once the money gets to an iranian bank account, it's impossible for us to track it. we can imagine how iranians use
it but don't know. we can't prevent them from doing the terrible things they do, so let's not talk about the form of the payment when i think our real concern is that we don't like what iran does with money that it legally obtains. additionally, my understanding is that this requires an immediate payment. as much as it might be counterintuitive, electronic wire payments to iran have taken months to complete while the cash option method terms of the settlement. it's not something we like to do but, again, we signed an agreement called the algiers accords and each president in terms of giving money back to iran which was legally their money has used the rules of the accords. president obama's not the first president to do that. as i pointed out before, both president reagan and president george h.w. bush did it as well. it takes a long time to make a wire transfer to iran because u.s. sanctions against iran are
so powerful and so comprehensive that there are virtually no banking relationships between the united states and iran. therefore, wire transfer was not an option it would have taken too long. in order to abide by the settlement, the u.s. government had to make an immediate payment. so mr. chairman, that's the reason i will have to oppose this amendment even though i appreciate that the chairman is seeking to clarify and make -- clarify the bill and make it better. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. , royce: reclaiming my time mr. chairman. i will just make the following points. did have another way to ansfer any agreed upon settlement without transferring palettes of cash. we know that because the administration had made other
transfers to iran, so this bill does not withdraw the u.s. from the claims tribunal or algiers accords. it doesn't impact that. nor does it effectively prevent the united states from paying out awards rendered by the tribunal. as i've indicated, we simply with this bill prohibit cash from being used as a payment method. if the united states has to pay iran a tribunal award in the future, the payment should be processed through the formal financial system as the other payments to iran have been, and that's how the hague tribunal payments have been handled for 35 years and that's how it should work in the future. but our sanctions system was designed with tribunal payments in mind. the iran transaction sanctions regime contains a number of exemptions from the rules so
that certain transactions can go forward and in this case transactions for tribunal settlements are explicitly authorized and would shield any entity involved in such a transaction from liability under u.s. law. so going back to the original argument, we're trying po perfect the bill but at the end of the day we can't collapse the effort because we've now had three plane loads full of cash with pallets of cash transferred to the regime and we can bet iran will angle for more. just last night, the iranian president asserted that considerable sums of money are under discussion to be returned in iran. this can't happen again. this cannot happen by another pallets of cash shipment to the iranian regime or the irgc, and so this amendment is important
and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. royce: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: yeah, let me respond just to some of the things that we heard from some of our colleagues. this was not a ransom payment. this was payment for a 30-year-old claim over a weapons shipment that was never delivered, and the united states actually got pretty good deal on the settlement. we might have had to pay more interest if we had settled and the judgment would have gone to the u.s. claims tribunal. en the prisoners plane was sitting on the tarmac, the administration, as i mentioned before, held up the settlement payment. -- couldn't find the administration officials feared that as one was being released,
his ranians were holding family. they felt the settlement was being held up. leveraging money, money that belonged to iran in the first place and was going to be paid to iran under the algiers accords was smart. can you imagine if they paid the settlement anyway even if the prisoner release was stalled? hat didn't happen. some people are saying that the administration made payments to iran via wire transfer before and after the ransom so why did the ransom have to be cash? well, the payments made before and after the settlement payments were months in the making. it takes a long time to make a wire transfer to iran because u.s. sanctions against iran are so powerful and so comprehensive, as i mentioned before, that there are virtually no banking relationships between the u.s. and iran. it takes a long time to wire
money to iran, but the requirement of the settlement was that the payment had to be immediate. therefore, a wire transfer, instead of cash, was not an option. it would have taken too long. let me say this. i said it before and i'll say it again. money is fungible whether cash, wire transfer, check, gold or any other form of payment. once it gets to iran we have no way of tracking to. so i believe this thing about cash is beside the point. money can be used for nefarious purposes once it gets to iran no matter what the method, but when we are going to make a payment to iran pursuant to a settlement or a judgment, congress should know about it and i am offended that we didn't know about it and that's why when i introduced my amendment a little bit -- introduce my amendment a little bit later on we will require that congress be informed of any kind of transfer, not only
to iran, but to any other rogue nation at least five days before. so we should have greater oversight of these payments. i agree with that. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. engel: i don't think we should worry about whether it was cash or some other method. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. -- it is now ause in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-781. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? mr. pompeo: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-781
offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 879, the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment in short prohibits ransom payments to any country. although the american people consider this to be u.s. policy, given the administration's recent actions, we have to make this prohibition explicit. this amendment will support and strengthen the good work of chairman royce in h.r. 5931. think about this timeline. the u.s. wires $400 million in cash from the swiss national bank and then physically transports it to another city to hand off to iranian officials all in three days. three days. three days before iran releases four american hostages. but it gets worse. less than a week after this, the u.s. again sends hordes of cash to iran. -- we only know this timeline thanks to multiple and consistent inquiries from
myself and other members of congress and yet there are so many details we still don't know. for instance, on april 5, 2016, white house spokesman josh earnest in response to a reportary's question on whether the obama administration misled congress about the iran deal stated, quote, i don't there is any evidence to substantiate this claim. i think you should take a rather dim view of this congress because congressman pompeo didn't approve this bill and he certainly didn't favor it. of course, my personal view of the jcpoa is irrelevant if the administration stonewalls congress. the state department admitted that the payments of millions of dollars and pallets of cash to iranians would not have been made if they did not release hostages. it doesn't explain months of lying to the american people. mr. chairman, ransom payments put a price on the head of every american. this bill prohibits the united states government from making a ney to secure the release of unjustly detained u.s.
residents or residents. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does anyone seek recognition for opposition? mr. engel: yes, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: let me just -- the chair: for five minutes. mr. engel: let me say first of all, on the face of it the amendment makes sense. it's already u.s. policy not to pay ransom. on june 24, 2015, president obama issued a directive, quote, it is the united states policy to deny hostage takers the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes. codifying this policy, though, without giving the president any flexibility is not what we should be doing. there is no waiver in this bill. things like this usually have waivers so any president, this president and future presidents would have flexibility. but, again, this whole issue i believe is a red herring.
the united states did not pay a ransom for the four americans detained in iran. we were paying iran back its own money, money it had given us to buy weapons before the iranian revolution. i've never heard of paying a ransom using the cap tore's own money. it's galing bus it's not a ransom. every -- it's galling but it's not a ransom. we should not be criticizing the president. we should be putting our heads together and finding a solution. these issues are too important to get caught in partisan fights. it's not how we do things on the foreign affairs committee. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kansas is recognized. pomp pomp mr. chairman, i yield two minutes -- mr. pompeo: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. zeldin: i thank the distinguished gentleman from kansas for offering this amendment to an important underlying bill from the chairman of the house foreign
affairs committee, ed royce. it's really important to point out as a matter of policy and what unfortunately is very necessary for this congress to take action on to make it very clear that we don't pay ransom. now, with regards to the $1.7 billion that has been paid to iran to secure the release of the four iranian hostages, other terms have been used, the one most often used lately is called leverage. the fact is if the money did not arrive immediately, the hostages wouldn't have been released. no money, no hostage release. why are we debating as if this wasn't a ransom? if the money didn't show up, $400 million in cash, the hostages wouldn't have been
released. why do we not put a price on -- release, a financial price? because now more americans are being unjustly imprisoned by iran. shehini in ey in -- california visiting his mother is being held accused of, quote, cooperating with hostile governments, actions against national security and communication with anti-revolutionary agents and media, end quote. this is an american visiting his mom in iran, and why do we not pay ransom? why do we not give money to secure the release of an american hostage is that now
more americans have been taken hostage. thank you, mr. pompeo. the chair: who seeks recognition? mr. pompeo: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close, finish. . the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized. mr. pompeo: mr. chairman, i -- this is an important amendment. we need to codify what we have known for years has been american policy, under a -- under democrat presidents and a republican president that we simply won't pay ransom to get americans back. i'd urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: yes. let me say, first of all, that the iranian regime is bad -- is bad regime. they hold american -- is a bad regime. they hold american prisoners,
before we paid them the money, and they'll hold prisoners after. . has no basis whatsoever the easy to put out the word ransom. but this was not a ransom. it's a reprehensible regime, they do reprehensible things. the united states fulfills its obligation. again, the algiers accord, by the logic that this should not have been done, then when george h.w. bush did it, it should not have been done. when ronald reagan did it, it should not have been done. they did it because we maintain our obligations in the united states. so, any of us can get up and give a litany of things that we don't like about the iranian government, believe me, i take second to none when it comes to that. but the united states needs to fulfill its obligations. and the iranian regime needs to be checked. but it's not a ransom and
that's just the problem. by calling it a ransom, by calling names, by trying to poke a finger in front of the eyes of the administration, we don't get to the real issue and the real issue, which i hope we'll get to later, is, again, to give congress notice before this happens. that's the issue. to just say ransom and throw that word out, anybody can do that. but this wasn't a ransom. we are fulfilling our obligations under the accords that we signed, that each american president facing the same type of thing has sent money to iran, because we fulfill our obligations. doesn't matter from which party the president comes, president obama did nothing more than other presidents have done before him. i oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,
the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-781. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? mr. pompeo: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-781 offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 879, the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that amendment number three printed in house -- 3 printed in the house report be modified in the form i have placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amendment number 3 printed in house report 114land 71 offered by mr. pompeo of kansas.
page 11, after line 21, add the following. s.e.c. 10, sanctions with respect to iranian persons that hold or detain united states nationals or aliens lawfully admitted for a permanent residence. a, imposition of sanctions. not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this act, the president shall impose the sanctions described in subs.e.c. b with respect to, one, any iranian person involved in the kidnapping or unjust detention of any individual who is a national of the united states. mr. pompeo: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: the reading is dispensed with. is there objection to the modification? without objection, the member is recognized. mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment that i've offered today places comprehensive sanctions on individuals who hold americans hostage. this amendment will support and strengthen the good work of chairman royce on h.r. 5931.
this week marks one year the iranian government has been holding hostage a u.s. legal permanent resident and international development -- internet development expert. mr. zacha this week was sentenced to 10 years in prison and millions of dollars in fines. his only crime was to bring greater internet access to the women of iran. he joins two other americans held hostage and one who is missing. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. i do appreciate the sentiment behind what the gentleman is seeking to do. of course we want to punish anyone who is unjustly holding american citizens behind bars. but there are so many potential unintended consequences in this amendment. i simply don't know where to start. first, the amendment requires sanctions against any iranian who unjustly detains a u.s.
citizen. but the term unjustly detained does not define -- is not defined, so who defines it? the white house, congress, iran? it's very difficult. secondly, as anyone who has worked on sanctions policy knows, and we work on sanctions a lot on the foreign affairs committee, it is typically not the use of sanctions that encourages the change in behavior, it is the threat of sanctions that encourages a change in behavior. that means that the iranians have to believe that we will implement sanctions against them, but the president has to be given flexibility to use it or suspend it if they do change their behavior. this is impossible under this amendment. the president has no flexibility, no waiver, no termination authority, none of the typical details that compels regimes to change their behavior. so, let me say, because of that i encourage all members to oppose this amendment and i yield the balance of my time to our colleague, the ranking member of the middle east
subcommittee, mr. ted deutch. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. deutch: i thank the chairman and i thank my friend, the ranking member. i have to oppose my friend from kansas' amendment. i oppose the amendment not because of what my friend is trying to accomplish, but because of the way that we're trying to do it. i proudly represent bob levinson who went missing on march 9, 2007. he's the longest held american in history. and we have worked tirelessly in this house, working with my friend, the sponsor of this amendment, mr. royce, the chairman of the committee, mr. engel, the ranking member, we've worked in a strong bipartisan way, all of us together, to bring bob home.
, amending this legislation which i explained last week in our committee hearing why i oppose, just as the ranking member did today, because the risks that the underlying bill causes in violating our legal obligations under the algiers accord that has yielded over $2.5 billion for american claim ants and prohibiting set -- claiments and prohibiting settlement of claims, that requirement that could prevent the u.s. from reaching settlements, this is a piece of legislation that we oppose and the goal is to continue to ensure that everything we do in focusing on bringing bob home is done in a way that can pass with overwhelming support. so i -- unfortunately i have to oppose my good friend's amendment. but i want to thank him for the effort of focusing attention, again, on american citizens who
continue to be held in iran. ight months ago we were told when three men finally were able to return home to their iranians at the agreed to continue cooperating with the united states to determine the whereins of robert levinson. it is eight months later and bob levinson is not home with his family in corral springs, florida. and i look forward to working with my friend from kansas. and i look forward to working with every member of this house and all of us in this country who understand that as long as there are americans being held and as long as bob levinson, the longest held american in history, continues to be missing in iran, that this house of representatives will not rest, that we will continue to pay attention and work together to find ways to maximize our efforts to bring him home, through whatever
pressure is necessary, it is intolerable that we have to come to the floor over and over and over again as this poor family continues to wait for the return of their father and grandfather. i thank my friend for helping to raise this issue. i unfortunately have to oppose the amendment for the reasons that i've stated. i look forward to working together with my friend from kansas, democrat it's and republicans, all of the -- democrats and republicans, all of the people of goodwill in this house and in this country until we bring him home. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas, as modified. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment as modified is agreed to. is now in order to consider
-- it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 114- 781. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-781 offered by mr. duffy of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 879, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to take a moment and thank chairman royce for all of his work on this commonsense bill. but i have to say, i'm a little bit shocked that chairman royce has to put so much work into this kind of a bill to prohibit cash payments to iran. the lead sponsor of terrorism
in the world. shame on us for being in a situation where we need legislation to stop cash yments to a state sponsor of terror. have we so soon forgotten what happened on 9/11? and have we so soon forgotten iran's role in 9/11 15 years ago? just recently a former u.s. senator and democrat party vice presidential nominee joe lieberman quoted the 9/11 commission saying, there is strong evidence that iran facilitated the transit of al qaeda members into and out of afghanistan before 9/11 and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. iran supports international terror. they've been designated a state
ponsor of terror since 1984. we know that the currency of terror is what? it's cash. they use cash to fund terrorism. and so instead of saying, you know what, we're going to make payments if payments have to be made by wire transfer to some iranian bank in europe where those payments can be traced, we say, no, no, no, no, we've been so successful in cutting them off from the financial world, we want to make these payments in cash to them. it's illegal right now for us to actually load up a plane full of cash and send it from the u.s. to iran. so the recent transaction that happened, to get around that rule, the administration, president obama, jack lue, said, we're going to wire the money, we're going to actually wire the money. we're going to wire it to a european bank and instruct them to convert it to cash and send it to iran.
shame on the american administration and shame on this house for not stopping it. i have an amendment that says not just iran, all state sponsors of terror, and we should also include north korea , to be included in the list of folks that we are unwilling to send cash payments to. this is just -- i mean, commonsense american policy. that we've had in place for a long time. that now is being rolled back by this administration. and we have had so many people on both sides of the aisle who understand the threat of terror and the threat of cash in terrorists' hands, we've all stood together. we now see a division in this house to not support that very commonsense effort, which is an effort to support the american citizens and their safety, i think is a sad day for this institution. with that i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: i rise to claim time
in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: thank you. first of all, i think everybody knows i'm from new york and, frankly, i don't need anyone lecturing me about 9/11. that's something that's a pain in my heart, that i'll live with the rest of my life. i think that any reference to 9/11 from this bill is just totally off base. . again, mr. chairman, i don't like shifting payments from iran or any hostile to the united states but we have to abide by our blakeses whether we like it or not. we also don't want to tie our hands, which is what this amendment would do. this measure would impose a permanent and blanket prohibition on most forms of money transfers. not just cash whether made directly or indirectly to third parties. it would preempt all existing provisions of law. we have no idea what sort of consequences could come with something like this. we may face diplomatic or strategic opportunities that would require quick action.
but this provision is so encompassing, regardless of circumstance and, again, there is no waiver for unforeseen situations. there's always waivers for the president in bills like this because the president can best decide what unforeseen situations there are. again, it's any president from any party. so i think this amendment would take us down a wrong path. i'm going to oppose it and i urge all members to do the same and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. duffy: thank you. i would just note the chairman's bill and my amendment doesn't prohibit cash payments to a lot of people around the world, a lot of countries around the world. it restricts cash payments to only a few countries around the world and those countries that are american designated states that sponsor terrorism. and i don't mean to lecture
anybody about 9/11. i didn't live in new york. i'm not from new york but i watched what happened in new york. i think it's important that we not forget what happened, who was responsible. and that we don't lose our focus. today for partisan reasons on who those bad actors are and that we remain vigilant in our effort to push back and fight back against state sponsors of terror, and part of that fight is the fight against allowing them cash. and on the banking committee, i know mr. royce works on this aggressively, we can use the global financial system to shut them out and we've been successful at that. but if you open up the global financial system and you pour cash and gold into iran that can be used to sponsor terror or to buy technology in regard
to missiles or to advance your nuclear program, that has a direct impact on-on-americans in our security and our safety and i think it's incumbent upon this house to look at, first, for our constituents and our countrymen, which means less prohibit cash payments. not any payment. i might object but you could make a wire transfer that you can actually trace, but let's not send cash payments that are untraceable to state sponsors of terror. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-781. for what purpose does the
gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. engel: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-781 offered by mr. engel of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 879, the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm offering this amendment because i do think there's a lot of common ground when it comes to this issue. my concern is that the administration really did not give congress its due with respect to this payment. we were told about the payment but not notified about how this transition would take place and that's not right, especially when it is somewhat unusual. my amendment would require the administration and future administrations to notify congress at least five days in advance of any settlement, agreement or payment to iran,
to other countries on the state sponsor of terrorism list and to north korea. and it provides appropriate oversight on the claims that are remaining at the tribunal. it's straightforward. it ensures that congress' role in foreign policymaking is not overlooked. i don't think anyone here disagrees with that idea. so my amendment gets to the heart of it. i think it would allow this bill to sail through the house with strong support on both sides. it leaves aside the areas that are sure to eventually derail the underlying measure. talk of ransom again and again, focus exclusively on cash payments. we're not going to agree on these areas. putting them front and center guarantees that this bill has no path forward. so let's put those issues aside and advance legislation that addresses all our concerns. it's what we do every day on the foreign affairs committee. i hope my amendment will help get our committee's work back
on track. again, i ask all members to support the amendment. i don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that the administration and all future administrations give congress enough time so that we will hear about payments, we will hear about transactions before they're done, not while they're done or after while they're done. so i ask all members to support this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment and will regretfully oppose the ranking member's substitute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. chairman, i agree with part of the argument by the eing made here gentleman from new york, and you just heard a common theme between the underlying bill and the ranking member's substitute and that is the need for
greater transparency and especially transparency around the claims tribunal. that's a must. and i'll go back to the underlying problem. if diplomats were working overtime on a settlement, why not tell the committee of jurisdiction of the possibility if the goal of this settlement was to merely put to rest a decade-old dispute over an abandoned arms sale after we were told after the fact, then why the secrecy? the administration has intentionally left us, this congress and this committee in the dark. so both the underlying bill and the ranking member's substitute require the administration to be more transparent with congress and the american people about how it engages with the tribunal. if future settlements are truly a good deal for the american taxpayers, these requirements should be welcomed, not a burden. so the goal of the underlying
legislation is to ensure that a tribunal that has been in place since 1981 and has operated more or less successfully cannot be manipulated, cannot be manipulated by either the next administration or this administration. so here the two of us agree, but i'm afraid that this substitute does not address a larger problem and that's because this proposal, unlike the underlying bill, contains no restriction on the way in which iran could be paid, and i was raising questions about the $1.7 billion payment when it was first made. quite frankly, not too many were focused on it until it was revealed it was paid in cash, so let me explain why many of us believe that this is a crucial problem and it is because checks and wire
transfers do leave a paper trail. cash does not leave a paper trail. if iran wires money to its terrorist proxies, we can see the banks it used and we can work to cut them out of the financial system and that's what we're trying to do in isolating their ability to transfer funds to hezbollah or hamas. now, when we give iran cash, then iran can put that cash on a plane or on the back of a truck, and they can send that cash to syria or send it to gaza, to hamas or send it to lebanon, to hezbollah, and that's why cash, the physical bills, are so valuable to iran. cash, not wire transfers, are the currency of terror. the bottom line is that
because everyone knows that cash is a conduit for all sorts of illegal behavior, my hope is to carry the day here with this argument that the underlying bill has got to maintain this ability to cut off payments in cash to the terrorists in tehran, and i call them terrorists because that's what the iranian revolutionary guard corps' funding as well as ballistic missile production and that is what the quds forces -- you know, the head of the quds force who is charge with assassinations outside the country, that's what he's doing. they just toppled a government in yemen that was an ally of the united states. they just committed atrocities, further atrocities in syria and they're bulking up hezbollah as we speak. so that's why i feel that portion has to remain in the
bill, and that's why i reluctantly oppose this amendment which would remove the effectiveness of the cutting off of cash. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you. let me say that i appreciate my riend, chairman royce's, words. we don't totally agree on this but we do agree the iranian regime is a bad regime and they need to be checked and i would hope that after this whole process is done, because this bill is not going to become law, that we can put our heads together and come up with something that can become law because the iranians need to be checked and the congress needs to be informed and needs to be a part of the process. we are obviously an independent branch of government. i now yield as much time as he may consume to mr. deutch of florida. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. deutch: thank you, mr.
chairman. i thank my friend, mr. engel. mr. chairman, the goal here both , i think, is to simultaneously ensure we don't take any action that would make it difficult for americans to to the tribunal that would enhance our ability to continue with our legal obligations under the algiers accord but that will also focus on the very specific problem that we have at hand. mr. engel's substitute amendment, i think, will permit us to do all of that. it carries over the provision from the underlying bill that requires reporting to congress on claims, settlements and payments to iran. it enhances our ability to have -- to be aware of, to have greater visibilities of
transfers to iran going forward. t will make sure we keep focus before the transfers so we can then act accordingly. and i would just remind everyone that we've really done meaningful work in the house under the leadership of the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, mr. royce, and the ranking member, mr. engel. we've done meaningful work because we've been able to work together to take on the threats posed by iran. it's because of the work, the bipartisan effort, the work that's been done together that iran faced unprecedented economic sanctions, and it's because of the work, again, that's been done in a bipartisan way that members of the revolution air guard corps, that commit egregious human rights violations continue to remain sanctioned. it's because of the efforts of
chairman royce and ranking member engel that banks continue to be weary of dealing with iran and iran is still fully unable to access the international financial market in u.s. dollars. so there is -- there are plenty of examples of the good work that we've done together. when we work together on these critical issues we are stronger. i think mr. engel's amendment will let us go forward in a bipartisan way, in a manner that, again, will help the united states to be stronger and safer. i know that's everyone's goals both on the foreign affairs committee and in the house. that's why i support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. chairman, regretfully i will be opposing this substitute. as members of the house know, it's unusual for the two of us to be at odds. working together we have a long track record of success.
14 bills this session. 18 in the last session and just yesterday the house sent to the president's desk bipartisan legislation authored by myself and ranking member engel to crack down on the illy trafficking of wildlife. but -- illegal trafficking of wildlife. but here we have a disagreement. sending pallets of cash is bad policy. this bill fixes the problem. i oppose the substitute and urge passage of the underlying measure, and i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. engel: mr. chair, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?
mr. royce: mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. hairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 5931, direct me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the
it has reached a point where we're seeing the fruition of the effort, all the interest, all the concern and all the work that has gone into making it happen, and so it's really a great period in the history of our country. >> it's been some 50 years since the passage of the civil rights act and, of course, the first african-american presidency is coming to a close. how do you see the museum in terms of history? mr. davis: well, the museum helps to integrate, if you will, african-american life as development of this great nation of ours. i mean, we have not reached the point yet where that perfect union has been established, but we continue to move towards it. we continue to see the
potential of it becoming and i think that's how this museum will integrate and work its way into the hearts and minds of all americans who will view this as a tremendous accomplishment. >> how important is it, do you think, that the museum is located on the national mall near the washington monument, the lincoln monument, the martin luther king memorial? mr. davis: well, i couldn't think of a better spot, a better place, because all of those are parts of this great country of ours and this museum fits right in with all of the other edifices that are there and so i think it's in its rightful place. >> what does the museum mean to you personally? mr. davis: well, personally i grew up in rural america.
my parents were share croppers. i went to a one-room school ere one teacher, ms. king, taught eight grades plus what we call the little primmer and the big primmer all by herself. i played basketball on the ground in high school because we didn't have a gym. first school bus i ever rode on, a gentleman made it, mr. duly, had a flat-bed truck and he put a cabin on it and that was our first school bus in the town where i lived. is a this museum, which depiction of not only the struggles but the triumphs, the accomplishments, the achievements of african-americans give me a tremendous sense of pride.
i represent dr. lonnie bunch, my director, who lives in congressional district, illinois, oak park, illinois, is home for him. so i feel personally just a tremendous sense of pride in rms of his leadership in accomplishing the development of this museum. i couldn't feel better. >> congressman, thank you very much. mr. davis: thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture opens its doors to the public for the first time saturday, and c-span will be live from the national mall starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern for the outdoor dedication ceremony. speakers include president obama and founding museum director lonnie bunch. watch the opening ceremony for the african-american museum and culture live at saturday, 10:00
a.m. eastern on c-span. listen live on the c-span radio app. >> a member of the congressional black caucus talked earlier today about the bombs in new york and new jersey. this is from today's "washington journal." officers. a host: in light of what happened this weekend in new jersey, new york, and minnesota, we are turning our attention discussing domestic terrorist attacks. joining us from capitol hill this morning is congressman donald payne, a democrat of new jersey and the member of homeland security. includesdistrict linden, new jersey, where the bombing suspect was caught. what is the latest in the investigation? guest: thank you for having me, greta, first of all. it is good to be with you. the latest is, we had a
committee hearing yesterday, and andral experts, before us we are finding that a journal tot rahami had on him open to some information that the official agencies are finding useful. are somes that there combatants inis his journal. excuse me. actualmentions the bombings and where he wanted to act out his vengeance. that has really been the latest. we are supposed to have another
top-secret briefing with homeland this afternoon. host: what can you tell us about of this alleged attacker received help from other people? twot: it appears there are people of interest that the fbi would like to talk to. they're working on tracking them down. we are hoping that they are able to find these two persons very quickly. opportunity, as you stated, he was captured in my district in linden, new jersey. i was able to speak to chief , andon that day congratulate him on the work he and his officers did in capturing rahami. injured ins were
this capture. officer hammer an officer padilla. they are both doing fine. coming out of the hospital, they asked to go back to work. that is a commitment of our first responders here in the nation. we just want to thank them. host: we want to invite her viewers to call in with their questions and comments about how best to try to stop domestic terror attacks. our guest is congressman payne, one of four members we are talking to the fit on the homeland committee, charged with protecting homeland. congressman, do you believe that -- dorson one person believe that one person could of made the bombs and put them in place like this alleged attacker did over the weekend? guest: well, i am sure one person could do it.
when i was told it was one person, i sat back and thought about the time it must have taken to put all of this together, and even just to deliver it to the different sites. it seems like a great deal of work for one person, but it could be achieved over a period time. it is just a matter of how long it took, and also, you know, they have tracked down where rahami had gotten some of the raw materials off of ebay. those items when were purchased, we can tell the timeframe in which he was working. host: so this brings up his history, the law enforcement, the fbi being aware of him. he was flagged two times. the bombing suspect passed
scrutiny. returned when rahami from a year-long trip to pakistan, he was pulled off for a screening. they notify the national targeting center assessing potential threats. what is this national targeting center? how does your name to put into this database? if you was in this database, how come he was not watched more closely? -- if he was in this database, how come he was not watched more closely? guest: we need to look at that. flagged thosewas two times was because of his travel. he passed through which allowed him to get back into the country. he is a naturalized american
citizen with some certain rights. definitelye need to take these issues quite seriously. host: let's get the calls. robert in virginia, democrat, you're up first for the congressman. caller: yes, congressman. bombshese people set off from whatever they come from overseas, we should not be we should not be allowing his wife to return to the united states of america when she probably know something about it, and the father, and anybody who something to do with it. they should be shipped out of it netted states and not allowed to return. host: congressman, what are your thoughts? guest: well, i think those are
options that can be looked at. we also have to remember, you know, he was a naturalized american citizen. and i believe his father was as well. as the caller stated, we need to verify that. theit will come out if father or anyone else in the family had given him aid. i agree with the caller. to a degree, but we also have to remember american citizens have certain rights. makee have to definitely sure that the homeland of faith. host: what about those rights? the wall street journal editorial says it is time to open the interrogation and surveillance debates because he was a naturalized citizen. they said he was already read his miranda rights and lawyered
up even though he is not cooperating with the fbi. the next president should reverse mr. obama's policy, and allow terro be declared enemy combatants who can be interrogated at length to prevent future attacks. do you agree, disagree? guest: i think the whole issue defining them as enemy combatants, you know, if the evidence bears out that that is the case, that definitely put them in a different category. you know, as this investigation mies on, i am sure mr. rahall will end up in a category, but we have to let the investigation --it is very early.
one of the interesting things, and i commend lon performance -- and i commend law enforcement once again in terms of capturing him so quickly, less than 48 hours when rahami was captured. i think that, you know, the expertise in which law enforcement is working together across different agencies, and really working for the common goal, has really moved the -- moved the homeland security issue forward in a positive manner. previously, you would have and theetween the fbi limited police department on whose jurisdiction it is. now, it has become fluid. the homeland security is working as the mission is described. so, we are just delighted that
they were able to capture him in the timeframe that they did. that we need to make sure that the community stays involved. and if they see something, say something. had it not been for that bar contacted saw him and the police, we don't know where we would be right now. beach, florida, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. votedday, the senate 51-27 to sell arms to saudi arabia. arabiayou know if saudi is the most islamic terrorist country on earth.
how do you sell arms to the most radical country? [indiscernible] this country reviews radical countries -- host: congressman? guest: i was having a hard time understanding him. host: he was talking about us selling arms to saudi arabia. this caller making the claim that saudi arabia has the most ideologists in their country from the terrorism. guest: well, i think you have to terroristse radical from the government. we are selling to a sovereign
government that has been an ally for decades now. problems fromany some of its citizens. include thenot saudi arabian government from recent. then, saudi arabia has continues to and benefit from that relationship. host: let's hear from robert in fort worth, texas, an independent. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i grew up in that area. schoolto hillside high and went to a catholic school in elizabeth. i have friends in lindon. i lived in raleigh. that is a great area.
i miss it a lot. that people are being -- their lives are being possibly jeopardized. it really is a great area to live in and makes me sad that be of this pressure has to brought down on those areas. i think the police did a really, really, really good job. i mean, jersey is a great place. a host: ok. lets hear from craig in lawton, oklahoma, democrat. caller: hello. he should go to prison and then be deported. to ar as giving weapons
war, are we crazy? this will just cause more deaths. it will always fall into the wrong hands. look at iran, they used to be our buddies. would you want to give them more guns? what were we thinking about? that is not smart. ok, congressman, what about our involvement overseas in these hotspot areas in the middle east, and that impact that it has to the u.s. homeland? guest: we have been vigilant in these terrorist threats off of the mainland, and tried to intervene across the water in these countries and identify them before they get here. that is why we have set up checkpoints in such countries as
abu dhabi. it allows us to try to identify these combatants, or people that would be an issue in the united states before the get on the soil. in terms of the iranian situation, what the president has done is try to normalize the relationships with them, and move forward in a positive manner. we will have to see how that works. but, you know, we have to continue to try to have relationships with these countries in order to be able to identify people who are an issue. host: rituals, wisconsin, martin, independent caller. caller: hi, greta. hi, congressman. my question has to deal with the support of law enforcement in all of these issues that i been
going on in terms of racial relations and how that might affect some of the things happening in the country. i also would like to say in terms of your constituents from new jersey, in terms of being mosttoast, you may be the politicians i have ever seen. host: let me ask you is a ranking member of the home and community for preparedness, response and communication. yesterday, you heard from officials on capitol hill, recovered it on c-span, and one of the people testifying was john miller was nypd, there counterterrorism deputy. the 8000 cameras in new york that helped lead to the capture of this alleged attacker. do you think, or can you speak to why cameras are needed, and how much it costs, and should every city, major city head that direction? guest: i believe so, greta.
obviously, you have seen the ontures that caught rahami several different cameras moving through new york. that was one of the ways they were able to track down who this person was. i think it has become a great, great aid to law enforcement, and we have to continue to make sure that the grant dollars for equipment isf available to law enforcement. a grant has helped many urban areas beef up and bolster their homeland in terms of detection and helping to make sure that the areas are safe. in there cut drastically
2016 budget. but chairman donovan of the emergency preparedness subcommittee, and myself, urged the administration to put those dollars back because they are so invaluable in helping law enforcement departments have equipment, and do the work they do in order to keep us safe. inse grants are invaluable new york, new jersey, and a given us the opportunity to be on the cutting edge of the type of equipment that we need in order to keep our citizens safe. host: homeland security department was created after the september 11, 2001 attacks. programmingf the for these grants, giving grants to cities in order to be able to deter a terrorist
attack on the homeland. how much of that is your work that you do on the homeland security committee? guest: it is a pretty large chunk of what we do. even in the name of the subcommittee, preparedness -- responsibility is for any man-made, or natural disaster that happened in the homeland, we are engaged whether it's tornadoes in oklahoma, hurricanes in florida, earthquakes in california, or activities,one wolf such as we have seen over the past week. all of that falls under our purview. we deal with fema a lot with natural disasters. disaster int is a the united states, we work
around making sure that we are prepared for those disasters, and the work is very rewarding. we work with a lot of great agencies and entities across the country in order to do so. host: let's go to vail, arizona, democrat. caller: good morning. good morning to everybody. what i would like to say is history goes back a long way. say 1953ing back to through the british and our cia, as i understand it. i don't expect all of these things, but i have heard and i read and i listen. when you get all of these people riled up about their resources and what they want to do with the resources, and become in an
underhanded the governing agencies, that is what i have heard. i am not making this up, i am as honest as i can be. what i am saying is in the name of -- i don't want wars. i don't want to send and a bunch of problems brought upon us because we cannot honor each other's humanity, or treat each other like human beings. host: we hear your point. congressman, the you have any thoughts? guest: i agree with the caller. but we live in a very dangerous world. we wish the world was as he would like it to be in my would like it to be the same way. just this past week shows you that is not the world we live in.
it is our obligation in congress to make sure that the nation is safe. that is our first obligation as the federal government, to make sure that our citizens are safe, and we are trying to do that, working towards that goal every single day. host: that was the number one task as well for homeland security committee in the house. barry loudermilk, republican of georgia. i don't know if you were able to hear that caller talk about using the internet and social media, what is the committee looking at legislative lee to address the use of social media to attract and recruit terrorists? guest: we are spending a good amount of time looking at the social media aspect, how the internet is being used. terrorism has taken a new turn in the world today where they
are using technology. they are recruiting engineers, recruiting those with i.t. specialties. the are effectively using tools of social media to radicalize, especially those who live in the country. one of the problems we are facing in this nation is how we are not looking at what the true problem is. it is the individual. we have seen a drastic increase on attempted attacks on americans. it is strictly due to the increased volume of people in the nation and coming into the nation that seek to do harm to americans. host: the chairman said at his speech at the american enterprise said he is looking at new programs that would look to reform u.s. citizens who joined islamic state, but has since abandoned the terror program. do you know what that would look like? guest: the idea that has been used in israel have been very
effective, those web and recruited by isis, and have gone to one of the nations, such as syria. generally, these individuals, when they get there, they have been radicalize with ideas and visions of grandeur that you will be freedom fighter. want to get over there, they are put on the front lines, and their passports are taken from them, their friends are killed within the first few days. and a sense of reality sets in. those who are fortunate enough to make it back home, have a real sense of what it is like. it is not this vision of grandeur that they thought. they are not fighting for an ideal or cause, but being used as a pawn by these evil people to do their evil deeds. and they have a story to tell. the idea that israel is putting these people on camera, and telling a story. the parents are out there telling the story of what happened to their children. that is a general idea to get
that story of those who have experienced what it is like living inside the regime of terrorists, to get them out there and tell the true story and hope that we can deter some of those that may be a potential in our schools or wherever the target of radicalization. host: you serve on the special task force on combating terrorists and foreign fighter travel. why was it necessary to form this task force, and what work are you doing? aest: the reason we formed task force is that we did not believe the administration was addressing the true issue, which is the only way you can have a terrorist attack is if you have a terrorist here to do it. it is not the truck and runs over the people, it is the individual. it is the individual, not the knife that goes to the mall stabbing people. it is the individual, not the pipe bomb, the individual, not the pressure cooker.
it is the individual, not the gun. and we keep to turning away from of the true problem of terrorism is. it is those individuals with evil intent seeking to destroy americans i do harm to americans. there was a lack of emphasis, we created a task force to look at how do we stop these people from coming to america, getting within our borders with the intent of doing harm? that was in response for the the of what we believed was proper attention of this diminished rations. host: let's get to some calls. howard in philadelphia, democrat. good morning. caller: how are you doing? why are we spending so much time when hillary this clinton's i.t. that is been exposed as leaking the e-mails? guest: we are not spending and exorbitant amount of time dealing with the radicalization
aspect or the social media aspect. it is one piece of a larger puzzle we are trying to put together. we have to stop those from coming into the nation to start with. right now, we are not doing a good job. it is like trying to drain a pool with a garden hose only have a fire hose. realityto look at the that there is a populace in our nation that are subject to radicalization, and we are looking at how do we remove those tools that they are using, or use tools ourselves to have a radicalization, or at least be able to detect it when it happens. host: what tools are being used? guest: that is what we are looking at right now is how can we get a better sense of how the terrorists are using the tools? what are those things that appeal? who are those that are the most vulnerable? we have seen them using video games, some of the
battle-oriented videogames they would promise these young people who are disenfranchised saying, look, you can live out the fantasy world of your videogames in real life if you come here and help you fight for jihad. we are starting to build a profile for those most susceptible, and what we are being is young men and women -- what we are seeing is more men and women who are looking for a sense of belonging. that is one of the things we have to do to build that toward our toolbox. terrorism is no longer just a federal issue. it is a local issue. we have to empower local law enforcement to be on the front end of countering domestic terrorism, which means having those on the front line who people can feel comfortable with. we talk about if you see something, say something. will people are saying things all the time, but the federal government is not listening. in san bernardino, there were people afraid to come forward.
but they would be more comfortable going to local law-enforcement. we passed a house bill called the alert act that removes the barrier in the federal government that would allow local law enforcement to take the lead in many cases on counterterrorism. host: john is next, republican. john, good morning, you are on the air with a congressman. are you there, john, good morning, go ahead. caller: i am just listening to this gentleman talking he is right on the money. we need to start with the kids in school and teach them the right -- we got the worst government in the world and all that kind of garbage they teach in the schools. that is one of the basic problems, teaching them the truth and how to live the right kind of lives, this will come to an end. host: congressman, do you agree?
guest: that is an important part of it. we have lost touch with the heritage of our nation. america is as strong as america is as free. mainly because of the growth of government. it all goes together. there is more distrust of government across every demographic and there is good reason for it when you see the level of corruption that is being exposed every day out of the government. who havesee people clearly violated the law and not being held accountable for it, that creates discontent with the american people. you are seeing some of that distrust them play down in charlotte today where people have become so distrustful of government, they no longer know when the truth is being told her not. we have to rebuild the trust of our government to the american people by holding it accountable and making sure americans, while we ensure a safe and free society, that they do have the freedom.
we do not sacrifice our freedom for this idea of safety, especially when you have a government of people -- nearly government that people don't trust. host: elizabeth, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: yes, yes. bomber wasuest, the -- the bomber lived in his district? host: hold on, daniel. he did not live in his district, he was caught in his district. caller: and he did not know that the father had called the fbi two years ago to complain about his son be radicalized? bombers were interviewed by the fbi, and the uncle worked for the cia. back, his name was spelled wrong, but the russians have call the intelligence agencies and to them that the guy was be radicalized.
and still, they were able to bomb the marathon. aboutcongressman, what those two situations and the role of the fbi? did they miss something? they areviously, missing something there and we have to look at it from several viewpoints. 1 -- our law enforcement and homeland security have done a phenomenal job. if you knew the number of attempted attacks on america and the ones they have boarded -- thwarted. they areem now is that overwhelmed by the number of people who are seeking to do harm and planning these attacks. they are overwhelmed because they do not have the resources they need to effectively approach them. naturally, some people are going to drop off. i am not trying to make an excuse for the fbi, but they have done a good job. we are diverting a lot of counterterrorism money from carrollton are some --
counterterrorism money from counterterrorism operation. yesterday, i was at a hearing with the department of energy for the department of energy shut down a new year research program where they were researching low-dose radiation, which would be the result of a dirty bomb attack in the united states. program to down the shift all that funny to climate change research. the rcc in that in the fea -- we are seeing that in the faa. climate change research has increased by 800%. the counterterrorism research is being increased by 7%. that is a priority of this administration. whether you believe in man-made -- if you believe that man caused climate change, that is one argument, but regardless whether you believe that or not,
terrorism is a greater threat to our nation, and we are sacrificing the safety and security of the people to over find the research and climate change. host: how much is the budget for the home and security department? guest: at this point, we are still negotiating it and having a hard time working on budgets these days because the filibuster rule in the senate, we can't even get appropriations. they are sitting over in the senate. andon't even have authorization of our defense spending right now and can't even get a defense bill through because of the filibuster rule in the senate. democrats in the senate will not allow these appropriations bills to come forward, so what we are being forced to work with is a continuing resolution to fund the government at its current levels when we need to through congress. we need to be able to push that money into counterterrorism operations, and adjust the takenng that is being
away, but we cannot do it because of the filibuster rule in the senate. host: michael and illinois. independent. loudermilk's whole perception is totally wrong. he says there is no money to fight counterterrorism. destroyersnched two and spending $200 million for f-22 is. the problem is economics. people are disenfranchised. look at chicago, 500 shootings. i don't see anyone in the legislation trying to stop that. you argue over hedge fund managers about their stocks. that is what you argue that all day long yesterday, sir. if you keep bombing all of these people around the world constantly, you don't think you will make terrorists out of them? may be you should look at why the terrorists want to kill us? you drop bombs on them everyday. if someone come in and launch an
attack on us, we would fight every day and night. host: ok, let's make your point to the congressman. don't disagree that we are spending a lot of money overseas bombing targets when we should of taken out isis early on. issa should not even exist because we have pulled out of our ranks earlier than we should have. the best way to counter massive organized terrorist organizations, who you have seen the effect is if you don't sive, youn offen have a 9/11-type attack. we have a very poor strategy right now for countering terrorism overseas being on the offensive. we have a very poor foreign-policy initiative right now. we are going as far as finding some sworn enemies, such as iran. we have to improve our foreign
policy, but the fact remains, there are federal dollars that can protect americans right here, but the money is being diverted for programs like climate change research. host: the budget for homeland in 2016 was $41 billion and has 240,000 employees. steve, charleston, s.c., independent. caller: i am glad you brought up the budget. had been following the budget pretty closely. thanks to c-span because we get to watch the budget hearings after it is proposed. but people don't understand is that homeland security operates on a mandatory spending side of the house. military is discretionary spending and they operate under sequestration. everything they need has to go through appropriations and it is a sad state of affairs, and i don't like it. but what a lot of people don't understand is that the budget coast guard falls under homeland security.
that is a big organization. the last two callers were talking about what i want to talk about. proactive against reactive. you said a lot of attacks have been thwarted. i wish we could hear more about that specifically. and charleston, we had the charleston 9 shooting. a gentleman came out calling for people to take up arms against other people who is an american. maybe you have heard of him. i call the fbi office in columbia. the person answer the phone, and i said have you heard of malik shabazz? and they said really? host: stephen, i'm point to leave it there. congressman, talk about what you heard there and the caller's
concern with how it works. guest: one of the reasons you don't hear about a lot of the terrorist attacks that are of the, because a lot services remain classified. we don't want to reveal the sources we are using to tip off these attacks. we need to keep those sources in place. some of them you don't hear about because it is a classified nature. early on, when we began this war on terror, you did hear more about the attacks that were thwarted. there is other news that seems to preempt. we are driven by negativity in this nation today for some reason. negativity sells better than anything positive. that is one of the things -- we are the greatest nation on the face of the earth, even though with all the troubles we have, we are the best. i believe in american exceptionalism.
but we have to look at the things in america does good, but we do not promote those. i do not condemn law enforcement or homeland security. they are doing a lot with the limited resources they have. we have to have an appropriations system that ours, that is not tied up politics. on the floor the other day, we were debating a bill. i was speaking in favor of the bill and some democrats were speaking opposed to it. then someone stood up and said, look, this is the same hill the democrats were voting for two years ago, and they are voting against it because we are republican. we are blaming one side or the other. we have common goals, and we need to focus on most common goals. we need to reprioritize, get appropriations done, make sure our military is properly funded, make sure counterterrorism is
properly funded across the board. we are not going to do that until we can actually get back that power that congress once had, the article one authority we had to control the purse strings of this nation. host: new jersey, pat, republican. caller: congressman, we are being attacked by individuals, and it seems that almost all of fewattacks in the last years, at least going back to the boston marathon, these people were known to our homeland security. a fairly new home and security department issued alerts for people who were allowed into the country after 9/11. why aren't we keeping people americans and naturalized citizens and visitors who travel to these countries, why are we letting them back in? isn't there something we can do to protect ourselves from individuals? agree with her.
as i said, the problem we have is the number of terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks in america today is by the volume of people that are here that seek to do harm. people coming into the nation, such as through refugee programs, which we have to vet. it is unbelievable that we are allowing more refugees into the nation that are coming from nations that are sworn enemies to the united states. yet, we will not even vet them. it is almost impossible to vet some of them, but we know that is an avenue to bring more terrorists to this nation. on the other hand, we know a number of people have come in previously that are susceptible to be radicalized today. of the never get a hold terrorist problem in the nation until we identify the individual conducting the terrorist attack, not the tool they are using. we divert it for political purposes. they wanted to talk about guns,
but there are many more weapons used a terrorist than guns. in new york city, a gun was not involved. it was bombs. it was the individual who did this to it we have to remove the political correctness and look at things logically. we will not stop terrorism until we stop the individual and coming here or stop the individual hear from carrying out that act of terror. host: how conversation with members of the homeland security committee continues here. we have to think of our own first. host: ok, we will go back up to capitol hill. brian higgins is joining us, democrat from new york and ranking member of the homeland security subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence. sir, i would like to begin on the financing of terrorism. you have looked into this. how effective have u.s. efforts a been to cut off funding for groups like isis? you are always
endeavoring to cut off terrorism funding, but they are always finding new ways and new revenue sources to support their bloody deeds. so this requires consistency and persistence toward the goal of eliminating also as a revenue. bys was originally funded oil revenues and then by taking over territories and then taxing the people of those territories that they control. when those avenues of revenue are cut off, they seem to find new ones. i think law-enforcement officials and our military officials do a very good job in identifying those new and emerging revenue sources and cutting them off at the source. the treasury department with the financing, do they have a role? guest: they do, but like anything else in counterterrorism, it is all about the fusion, the integration of all of our resources and all of our federal agencies working toward one goal, and that is eliminating
funding sources for terrorists and thus terrorist activity. world, interdependent the terrorists are very sophisticated in terms of information technology and finding new ways to finance their terror activities. host: congressman, what is the best way to counterterrorism? guest: we need to put it into perspective. since 9/11, 94 americans were killed by islamic terrorists in the united states. 15that same amount of time, 157,00050 to 7000 -- americans were killed by americans with guns. 90 people everything will they lose their lives to gun violence in america, including 31 who armored. murdered.
we need to support law enforcement, but we also need to promote a different narrative for terrorists who are stuck in that way of life here it in many cases, they are isolated and have become radicalized, and we need to address those issues. it is not one thing. it is a number of things. we need to work toward the goal the homeland safe and projecting -- protecting our principles of freedom and democracy around the world. host: phoenix, arizona, ryan is an independent. caller: i think you for c-span. i agree with a lot of what has been said. i want to add that i think our immigration policy, you know, we're not able to vet these people coming in from known terrorist countries. it seems to be that we are destabilizing these countries in wantingle east and then
to welcome the refugees that a lot of the terrorists will come in with. i think that is a recipe for disaster. our immigration policy as a whole, you know, it is a changing world. there will be less jobs in the future. so why do we want to set up for more naturalized or the mystics second generation terrorists in the future? we have to use some common sense. thank you. guest: i think we have a tendency to focus on all the negatives relative to immigration. we are a country of immigrants. the united states this year taken more people legally from throughout the world then every single country in the world combined. i would not be here if it was generous immigration policy in the united states, and a lot of people would not be here. we talk about rounding people up and throwing them out and building walls, that is not what america was built on. america encouraged people from all over the world to come to this great place and claim their piece of the american dream.
we need to uphold that and celebrate that, promote that throughout the world. is whenclose in, that we become vulnerable to terrorist activities, because the terrorist are influencing our domestic behavior. the idea of terrorism is to disrupt our way of life, and if we fall as public policy makers in creating immigration policies that are closed, then the terrorists win. so let's be smarter about this. everybody is all about the tough talk but no guts. thatact of the matter is the united states, again, to our great strength, immigration has build this economy to be resilient, strong, and diversified. when you think about it, americans elected a black man twice as president. his grandfather was a muslim. he went on to defeat a woman in
primaries, to the feed a mormon in free and fair elections. nobody in the world does that. it is a great strength of america. host: mississippi, republican. caller: yes, i think we should be able to -- you know, i agree, you know, with what the rep is saying. but i do think that united states, you know, should be open to anybody and anybody should be able to do the american dream, just like everybody else. but i would like, you know, to --, you know, people come in about the refugees, you know, i think they should be more cautious. i think they should have more strict, like, background checks.
host: we will ask the congressman about the vetting process for these refugees. what is it like? guest: i think we have a tendency to focus in on the negative, and we have an immigration policy that works very well. we are the envy of the world. and it is a vetting process that is a very thorough. to be truthful, i think what is happening is that when people are fearful and afraid, they want to know two things. they want to know that the solution is easy and it is not their fault. that is why some people, politicians, and america scapegoat on people from the outside, be it muslims, mexicans, whatever it is. america is much better than that, and we demonstrate that throughout our history. it is never perfect, but we are always seeking to form a more homeland.
our founding documents and monist as to do that, and that is what we should do. host: bob in sugar grove, west virginia, democrat. caller: good morning. i am looking at the fbi investigations of ahmad khan to it ind omar mateen am curious, how did we miss these things? it seems like the fbi has turned into the keystone cops. guest: first of all, in new york city, the new york city police department is the most effective counterterrorism organization in all the world. they are highly effective. i think they are using information technology, like toital "wanted" posters engage citizens in the pursuit of suspects involved in terrorist activities it when you look at these mass shootings, these bombings -- look at orlando. dead, one shooter.
the records were obtained -- those weapons were obtained illegally. new, connecticut, 20 kids slaughtered, six teachers, adults, killed, in many cases trying to show they could from a shooter. those weapons were obtained legally. the framers of the constitution could not have imagined this kind of hell in establishing the second amendment. people who are law abiding gun owners should not want people on the terror watch list to be able to obtain weapons, semi automatic rifles, semi automatic installs legally. what are we doing here? we should be trying to protect the integrity of gun ownership in this country by not allowing terrorists, people on the terror watch lists, to obtain weapons used in these mass shootings
legally. slots have been stopped or what do you know of terrorists wanting to use guns to carry out these acts? what we know about from new york and minnesota -- that was a knife, and in new york and new jersey, he builds bombs. guest: it is an important question. they nevererrorism, get credit for what did not happen. in counterterrorism, it is all about what did not happen. what were you able to prevent? what terrorist plot were you able to thwart before it could be executed? our counterterrorism officials, law enforcement officials, work together in these fusion cells, these joint terror task forces, to stop terrorists activity before it occurs, so we will
never know. that is the difficultly of counterterrorism work. counterterrorism officials have to be lucky all the time, but terrorists have to be lucky ones. keep incumbent upon us to our people safe and support the work of law enforcement agents toward the goal of protecting the homeland, which includes every corner of this country. host: congressman, the suspect from the new york and new jersey bombings was flagged when he returned from afghanistan. he was pulled for a second screening by customs, and there were so concerned after a second screening that they notified the national targeting center. what is the national targeting center, and how does it work? guest: suspected terrorists -- first of all, the fundamental problem is we do not have enough law enforcement personnel to monitor the activity of those who are suspected to be involved
in terrorism. we have to the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 879 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further onsideration of h.r. 5931. will the gentleman from louisiana, mr. abraham, kindly ake the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5931 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for the prohibition on cash payments to the government of iran and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-781 offered by
the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, had been postponed. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote an amendment 5 printed in house report 114-781 by the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-781, offered by mr. engel of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of