tv   U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business  CSPAN  March 21, 2016 12:00pm-6:01pm EDT

in place for compulsory purchase orders. in this case the council w >> the u.s. house is about to gaveling. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. march 21, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable steve womack to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan. speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2016, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one

hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, tomorrow is world water day. it's an opportunity to learn more about water related issues and find ways to make a difference. growing up in the mountains of north carolina, i lived in a house without electricity or running water. that experience taught me very quickly and very early in life that water is a valuable and precious resource when you have to carry it home from a spring twice a day. and that lesson has stayed with me. many of us take for granted that when we turn on our taps or faucets water will always be

there. however, more than 660 million people lack access to safe water, and 1.2 billion people live in areas with inadequate water supply. there are many organizations throughout our country and throughout the world that are working to change that situation. we can support those many organizations that aim to preserve and defend this vital natural resource, but it's also important that we evaluate how we use water as individuals. on world water day, i hope all of us will explore how we can take steps to preserve this fundamental resource and make it safe and accessible for the world's population. i yield back, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. bost, for five minutes. mr. bost: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today is world down syndrome day. this is a day that creates a global voice for the rights and inclusion of people with down syndrome. according to national down syndrome society, there are more than 400,000 americans living with down syndrome. and this is an issue that is very close to my home, for me and my family. 21, 2008, my -- grandson, stanley, was born, and stanley has downs. now, understand that i have 10 grand babies and one on the way. and each one is unique and special.

but let me tell you about stanley. stanley loves more than you can ever imagine. there's nothing more fun than coming in and looking up and seeing stanley say, hey grandpa, mike, i need a hug. and let me tell you that when families find out that one of the children or grandchildren will have downs, you worry, you're concerned. let me tell you that downs is something not to be afraid of. it is something that, yes, it is a special need. but downs children and adults can be trained and educated to a level where they can become self-supportive, become active members of society, and be a great part of not only this nation but this world. as i said earlier, there is no

one that loves more, that loves stronger, and loves so unconditionally. maybe we should take a lesson from them, mr. speaker. let me tell you that our family and all families that have members from the downs community in them are blessed beyond measure. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on wednesday, president obama nominated judge meric garland to replace the great justice antonin scalia. on the supreme court of the united states. judge garland is an extraordinary, well qualified candidate. highly esteemed within the legal community, and highly accomplished as a prosecutor

and appellate judge. he was confirmed to the d.c. circuit court of appeals in 1995 by a vote of 76-23. with a majority of republicans voting in favor of his confirmation. indeed, an even larger number of republicans said he was well qualified. i will speak to that. under normal circumstances, judge garland would now be sitting down this week for one-on-one meeting with senators on both sides of the aisle in preparation for his confirmation hearings. but senate republicans, mr. speaker, unfortunately, have made it clear that they will not be operating under normal procedure. instead, they are refusing even to meet with judge garland. let me suggest they are refusing to do their duty.

their approach is inconsistent with the expectations of our founding fathers, and a disservice to the american people, to the court, to american justice, and to the american people. and their justification has no basis in fact. justice kennedy, who sits now on the court, was confirmed during the final years of president reagan's second term. in fact, he's one of the 14 justices in our history who have been confirmed during a presidential election year. including lewis brandeis and benjamin cardoza. mr. speaker, there is hardly precedent that a lame duck president must allow a supreme court vacancy to sit unfilled for months. we do not allow that for the house of representatives. and for the most part we don't allow it for the united states senate. there is a time frame, indeed, in every state to fill seats in

the house of representatives so that the american people will be represented. to politicize this process is irresponsible and jeopardizes the proper functioning of our support. in 1988, during the kennedy confirmation process, president reagan said, and i quote, the federal judiciary is too important to be made a political football. ronald reagan. i agree. and i hope that senate republicans would, too. because we all know that their decision has nothing to do with judge garland's qualifications. senator hatch, republican from utah, in 1997, called judge garland, quote, highly qualified and said, and i further quote, his intelligence and scholarship cannot be

questioned. when put forward for the d.c. circuit court, judge garland was cited by senator hatch as, quote, a fine nominee. close quote. senator hatch ultimately voted to confirm judge garland to the d.c. circuit court. while chairman chuck grassley, who chairs the judiciary committee, on the senate, also a republican, opposed judge garland's nomination to the circuit court, it ought to be noted that it was only because he thought there were already too many judges on that bench, not because judge garland lacked qualifications. in fact, senator grassley made this clear by saying, quote, i have nothing against the nominee. mr. garland seems to be well qualified and would probably other good judge on some court.

senator jeff sessions, a conservative republican from alabama, agreed with senator grassley about too many judges on the circuit court and said of judge garland, quote, i would feel comfortable supporting him for another judgeship. i.e., although he didn't say this, but another judgeship would be a justice on the supreme court of the united states. now senator grassley and senator sessions have an opportunity to put judge garland on another court. needing as a vacancy to be filled. our founding fathers set up a court of nine justices. cognizant of the problem that would occur if there were a tie for four. that is the situation that exists today and can be remedied by the united states senate now. let's not play political games.

if republicans don't want judge garland on the court, schedule a vote. and cast their votes accordingly. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said just questioned on abc's "this week" i quote. under the constitution we have a shared responsibility. this is not something he, referring to the president, does alone. he nominates. we confirm. that of course is absolutely accurate. but i would say to senator mcconnell, the president has met his responsibilities. now it is time for the senate to do so as well. some senate republicans, mr. speaker, agree. senator mark kirk of illinois said on friday, and again i quote, cast a vote. the tough thing about these senatorial jobs is you get to say yes or no in your vote.

your whole job, senator kirk observed, is to say either yes or no and explain why. that is democracy. that is responsibility. furthermore, in february, senator susan collins, republican of maine said, quote, i think the obligation of the senate is to carefully consider any nominee whom the president smits. the best way to do that, in my judgment, is public hearings. senator collins was absolutely right. under pressure from within their own ranks, senate republican leaders can only stall for so long. before they must face up to their responsibility to give judge garland the fair hearing he deserves. and the american people expect.

i believe judge garland will make a fine supreme court justice, mr. speaker. and i thank president obama for selecting someone so "highly qualified, intelligent, and whose scholarship cannot be questioned. a fine nominee." all of those are senator hatch's words. i hope that he will be swiftly confirmed. leaving the supreme court with the possibility of gridlock as we have seen the congress at gridlock is not good for our country, not good for the american people, and does not serve our democracy well. senator mcconnell, hold hearings. flect upon judge garland's competency, intellect, and suitability to serve on the

supreme court. do your duty. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from new york, ms. stefanik, for five minutes. ms. stefanik: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to celebrate a tremendous milestone for a school in my district, the state university of new york, at potsdam. on march 25, 1816, the document that would establish what is now known as sunni potsdam was signed, making it one of our nation's first 50 colleges and the oldest institution in the suny system. since that time this school has developed a well deserved reputation for providing a top flight education, especially in liberal arts and science fields and is the proud home of the world renowned crane school of music. as the co-chair of the congressional steam caucus, i'm proud that suny potsdam is

leading the way in incorporating the arts into the traditional science, technology, engineering, and math curriculum. mr. speaker, it is my honor to stand on the house floor today to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the founding of suny potsdam. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. issa, for five minutes. mr. issa: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. these faces are not household names, faces. no one knows who these unknown americans are, and that's because they've been held in iran for so long. also er 18, 2015, and detained in 2015 and, of course, they were not detained, iran, as an that

authoritarian theocracy and the world is not watching the same as then. that's how the president could make a deal with iran and not include these victims of this dictatorship. so today, mr. speaker, i come to the floor to remind people that in the years, the decades since i was a young lieutenant 1979 when the ayatollah khomeini blamed students for somehow doing something, not his government, and continued to blame them and blames them in many ways till today because the iranian government today would still hold our embassy hostage. it still is a shell waiting for a return, a return that i fear this president wants to do by executive order. he's already thrown aside so much of what was working to stop this regime from spreading

terrorism. mr. speaker, as we speak today, these people are held hostage, and the american people are being held hostage by a president who chooses to use the pen and the phone over the diplomatic -- over the democratic means at his side. mr. speaker, i will continue coming to the floor and pointing out that iran continues to be a dictatorship spreading violence throughout the region. continues to fund hamas and hezbollah, continues to in fact destabilize countries in the region and now does so with $140 billion more. mr. speaker, it is extremely important that we stand firm in this house that this cannot be tolerated, that ultimately this body must stand and do what it is obligated to do, which is in fact to demand freedom for americans held involuntarily

and illegally around the world and particularly in iran. mr. speaker, i would close by commenting on the minority leader's statements. he's demanding that the senate do its job. at a time in which the political season is well under way and politicians are campaigning around america for president, at a time in which two sides have two different visions of a constitution. one is that the original intent of the constitution be adhered to and changed only by the will of the people as it has been 27 times. or that it be simply cast aside the way the current nominee for the supreme court would do with the second amendment and others. so mr. speaker, i respect the minority leader's right to an opinion, but, of course, we all on this floor have a right to be wrong from time to time.

mr. speaker, he clearly was when he went on for more than 10 minutes telling us we have to confirm a supreme court justice in the middle of a political season. i wish he had joined me in saying that this president should not make agreements that circumvent the constitution, that circumvent this body and leave americans stranded abroad. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. when president obama announced his efforts to normalize relations with cuba in december, 2014, many of us believed that his decision would only embolden the regime and end up hurting the cuban people. well, almost a year and a half later, we can say unfortunately, as expected,

that our suspicions have been warranted. this is indeed what has happened. president obama is only worried about legacy shopping and is willing to ignore the plight of the cuban people who continue to suffer under castro, and this normalization effort has been an abject failure for freedom and democracy on the island. the lives of the cuban people have not improved. a record number of them are fleeing the island to escape castro's tyranny. and freedom and liberty unfortunately no longer seem to be the goals of this administration for the people of cuba. in december of 2015, president obama said in an interview that he would go to cuba only when human rights and the situation on the island of human rights had improved. well, mr. speaker, this is what human rights looks like on the island.

the valiant ladies in white who walk peacefully in cuba to their church, and you see one being dragged away on the lower corner. and this is what happens to them every week in castro's cuba. they are harassed. they are beaten. this is not what an improved human rights situation looks like at all, mr. president. hours before the president arrived in cuba, hundreds of pro-democracy advocates were arrested. listen to that, ladies and gentlemen. hundreds of pro-democracy advocates were arrested just hours before the president's air force one touched down. many of them were members of the ladies in white. blanco.as de these brave women continue to speak out for justice and freedom against the regime that oppresses them daily and

arrests them every sunday when they walk peacefully to church. two weeks ago, the ladies in , she leader, berto solar asked president obama very pointedly -- and there they are getting arrested, harassed, as they do all the time. she said, please, visit gandhi park where we meet, meet with the victims of castro's repression. well, president obama responded by stating, quote, no one should face harassment, assault simply because they are exercising a universal right to have their voices heard, end quote. that's absolutely true. and then he added that he would raise these issues directly with their oppressor, raul castro. but once you have already embraced the oppressor of the ladies in white and legitimized

him on the world stage, what do these empty rhetoric and phrases matter to them? bertha sewler testified before our house committee on foreign affairs and said freedom for political prisoners, recognition of civil society, the elimination of all criminal dispositions and the right of the cuban people to choose eir future through free, elections, end quote. elections in cuba, fidel castro famously said, elections for what? they don't have any political system at all. that's one party to operate. that's the communist party. they have selections, not elections. the cuban people deserve more than just lip service and platitudes from the white house. they are demanding actions and reforms in cuba, to unclinch the fist of the castro control. but solely a meeting with cuban

civil society is a very low bar, mr. speaker. it is not enough to help the cuban people, especially after shaking the hands of a murderous tyrant, like raul castro. however, even this meeting with civil society is being undermined by castro's thugs, even this low bar -- gee, if i meet with this man, check it off the list, then my trip will be a success. many civil society members have stated they are now under house arrest, as i speak. that castro's security agents prevented them from leaving their own homes until president obama leaves cuba. in cuba's communist newspaper called grama, the regime noted that president obama's trip to havana dispels the myth that human rights are being violated on the island. they're no fools. they understand the image is worth a thousand words. the image of president obama in cuba says, no human rights are

being violated, and the regime knows all of the concessions that president obama has given comes with no strings attached and i will end with this, mr. speaker. no reforms are needed, no changes need to be made. in fact, the castro regime has already stated that it will not change one bit after all of these concessions. the cuban people deserve better. the american people deserve better. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until

at 6:30 eastern time. the arizona primary is tomorrow. 85 democratic delegates are at stake. >> book tv's in primetime on c-span2 starting tonight at 8:30 eastern. each night we'll feature a series of programs focused on medical care and national security. plus, encore presentations from recent book festivals. tune in for book tv in primetime this week on c-span2. go to booktv.org for the

complete schedule. >> this week on "q&a," fix the court director gabe roth. he talked about changed he'd like to see at the supreme court, including opening up oral arguments to cameras, and requiring justices to follow the same code of ethics other federal judges o. brian: gabe roth, when you first get the idea to start an organization called fix the court? gabe roth: thank you so much for asking me and thanks so much for having me on. about two years ago i was working with the reporters committee for the freedom of the press. we put together the coalition for court transparency. it was a single issue group with five or six clients.

i was working on when i was part of a political consulting firm in d.c., and the issue was ending the broadcast media in the federal judiciary. from the district level to the court of appeals level up to the supreme court, we had 20 different groups together, and ressed various different forms ads, lobbying, media, going on tv, programs like this, trying to get cameras in the supreme court. after doing a number of events which c-span covered, i realized it wasn't just the issue of a lack of broadcast media inside the courtroom that made the supreme court very opaque. it wasn't just the cameras issue. it was the fact that they don't follow the same ethics rules as every other federal judge, the fact that they serve for life as opposed to most other democracies where there is a mandatory retirement age, there's a term limit, and they also don't put a lot of their information online. they don't tell you when justice thomas is speaking in georgia or justice kagan is

speaking in massachusetts or their financial disclosures are not put online like those of the president and the vice president. this wasn't just one issue but a whole host of issues that made the supreme court made it the most powerful but least accountable institution in washington. i started my own thing. brian: where you come from? gabe roth: i come from nashville, tennessee. i my parents are back in new jersey, but from age 2 to 18, i was in national. brian: where did you get your education? gabe roth: washington university in st. louis. it was one of the best ideas i ever had, and that i would to -- for grad school i went to northwestern and got a degree in broadcast and was a tv news producer for a little while before switching over to the political world. brian: where is your headquarters for fix the court? gabe roth: right now it is in my apartment in chicago. i was working downtown at a shared office spaces but for

the time being in the winter in chicago we cocoon a little bit so right now it's at my kitchen table in chicago. brian: why should anyone care what you think about this? gabe roth: the supreme court decision's affects all americans. all americans are aware of the third branch of government, and in the last 10, 15 years, the third branch of government has become so powerful. the idea that issues on voting and marriage and health care nd immigration and women's rights, pregnancy discrimination -- i can go on and on. these issues that maybe 20, 30 years, congress and the executive branch would get together and figure out a compromise, put together a bill. that really does not happen anymore. the buck stops with the supreme court in a way that i feel is unprecedented in our history and given that the supreme court is making these very impact decisions in our lives, the least we as a public can do is press them to export with modern expectations of transparency and accountability.

brian: how much of your money comes from the new venture fund? gabe roth: all of it. i am very happy to have a grant from them and able to spend it to come to washington to talk to you and to meet with folks on the hill, and i speak at law schools across the country. i was in iowa a few weeks ago to talk to both presidential candidates and voters about how the supreme court is a campaign issue or should be. clearly with scalia's death it has become an issue. i had the opportunity to use that money in a bunch of different ways to figure out how to reach the most people in the most effective way. brian: how much time do you commit to this? gabe roth: this is a full-time job. when it started out i was not sure how long it would take or how much time it would eat up but this -- you know, it's -- doing this both with myself -- i have a few consultants. i know i look young but i need help with things like social

media i have consultants to put together a website, which i just learned to do, or figure out how to send e-mails to 30,000 people. but it's just me. sometimes news breaks at 10:00 at night, sometimes at 6:00 in the morning. i am sort of always on and try to find ways to get the issues in front of the american people and the decisionmakers that could potentially change the way the court operates as an institution. brian: i will go on to the court stuff in a moment. new venture fund is based where and i've seen their 990's were the a given away lots of money. a couple hundred million dollars. gabe roth: it is a big funds. i feel very lucky to receive the grant from them. they're based here. they're sort of all over the map in terms what have they give money to. i think they try to find creative projects, creative affairs projects that brings in -- maybe we don't think about

on a day-to-day basis, but we need to be thought about and talked about in a more creative way. brian: where does their money come from, who is behind it? gabe roth: all over the place. the way they work, a lot of the times it's like a fund-to-fund. the example i give, if an individual wants to cure, let's say malaria in africa and he's only got $10,000 but knows it will be a $100,000 type of a program, they will go to the venture fund and they will hook him up with nine other people each throwing $10,000, and then have a programmatic home for figuring out how to solve this problem. it is individual donations, foundations . it is just all over the map. brian: let's show an ad you produced back in 2014 about fix he courts. [video clip]

>> they told us where we could pray, allowed billionaires to buy the elections, and supplied debt. nine judges appointed for life to a court that makes its own rules and has disdain for openness and transparency. the supreme court, the most powerful and least accountable branch of government. learn more, demand change. go to fixthecourt.com. brian: is there a partisan label on your organization? gabe roth: not partisan. -- nonpartisan. there's no advantage that either party gains by having the supreme court on tv or having the financial disclosures online or limiting the terms of service of the justices. we are a nonpartisan organization. on a regular basis i am talking to senators or senate staff or members of the congress and their staff on both sides of the aisle. i feel like we've been lucky in the sense that both in terms of who cares about these issues on the hill and individuals from both parties, and when you -- we polled all our issues and it

republicans how 74% and 74% democrats want cameras in the court. i feel fortunate and also, given that there is a party advantage in either of these reforms, there is no way to skew one way or the other. brian: chief justice john roberts in february of this year, 2016, had this to say about the whole nominating process. [video clip] justice roberts: i do think the process is not functioning very well. you look at two of my colleagues, justice scalia and justice ginsburg, for example. i think they were confirmed -- maybe there were two or three dissenting votes between the two of them. now you look at my more recent colleagues, all extremely well qualified for the court and the votes were i think strictly on party lines for the last three of them or close to it.

that doesn't make any sense. that suggests to me the process is being used for something than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees. brian: let me put on the screen the actual vote totals for all the justices, including justice scalia. so we can look at what he just said. and it shows on there, you can see at the top justice scalia got 98-0. kennedy, justice kennedy 97-0. clarence thomas was 52-48. justice ginsburg 96-3. breyer 87-9. chief justice roberts 78-22. justice alito 58-42. justice sotomayor or 68-31. and justice kagan 63-37. what is your reaction to what the chief said and what you saw on the screen? gabe roth: well first of all, i

am happy these vote totals add up to 100. it's good to know that the senators are voting on these important issues. but more seriously, he makes a very good point, that over time potentially starting with the board nomination, maybe even thinking about to fortis, nominations have become more partisan. now that, the genesis of that is hard to exactly say where hat came from, who decided it, ut thinking about the court as a whole, it's looked at as a more partisan institution than ever before. you read an article in the paper about the supreme court, and almost any article you will see the epithet used, conservative justices did this, liberal justices did this. republican-appointed justices did a this, the democrat -- and

often there are switchover rights, right? eisenhower appointed justices that had quote-unquote liberal, kennedy had conservative jurisprudence. and bush -- well, the first bush did the same. but that really hasn't happened, and essentially given he closely divided court, we rojected that divideness on the whole nomination process, which i think is a shame. brian: you talked about justice fortis and the important nomination of judge board. my question is we can run it and then you can react is, how big an impact you think this moment had on attitude people have in the senate today? this moment was july 1, 1987. it was 45 minutes after judge bork was nominated to be on the supreme court. [video clip]

>> the man who fired archibald cox does not deserve to sit on the supreme court of the united states. mr. bork should also be rejected by the senate because he stands for an extremist view of the constitution and the role of the supreme court that would have placed him outside the mainstream of american constitutional jurisprudence in the 1960's, let alone the 1980's. he opposed the public accommodations civil rights act of 1964. he opposed the one man, one vote decision of the supreme court the same year. he has said that the first amendment applies to only political speech, not literature or scientific expression. under the twin pressures of academic rejection and the prosper of senate rejection, he suddenly retracted the most neanderthal of these views on civil rights and the first amendment. but his mindset is no less ominous today. rian: he lost 58-42.

54 of those were democrats and the conservatives call that slanderous. how old were you in 1987? gabe roth: i was five. brian: do you have any sense of the impact on that? gabe roth: i remember that. it was a formative event. it was clarence thomas. it was clarence thomas, i mean, there were accusations that were pretty serious on a personal level, which is different from what you saw with bork in terms of the way he views the world, the way he views the constitution. you know, it's tough because there a lot of different ways to react to the potential nominee. and at the time, with president reagan in the white house and the senate democrats leading the senate, having a divided government, reagan chose to

appoint somebody or try to appoint someone who had fairly -- whose views were fairly right-wing at the time. he ended up with justice kennedy under the bork nomination, after it failed. he ended up with justice kennedy who served, i think is a centrist judge, i think potentially a model for supreme court nominees. i don't love seeing senator kennedy going on and on about this on the one hand. on the other hand, the idea that you are going to appoint somebody that is dyed in the wool party politician. kagan came from the obama white house. chief justice roberts worked on the bush recount in 2000. when you have these individuals who have clear political backgrounds and political stances, it is inevitable individuals will take to senate floor and get up on c-span and harp on their history. rian: here is an ad that ran

. [video clip] gregory: redefended poll taxes and literacy tests which kept many americans from voting. he opposed the civil rights law that ended whites only signs at lunch counters. he doesn't believe the constitution protects your right to is i and he thinks that freedom of speech doesn't apply to literature and robert bork could have the last word on your rights as a citizen. please, urge your senators to vote against the bork nomination because if he wins a seat on the supreme court, it will be for life, his life and yours. brian: what do you think the idea of organizations in town that are supposedly 501-c-3's, have the 501-c-4 lobbying

running against a supreme court judge nominee? gabe roth: i don't think they will be running ads against obama's nominee. it's within their rights to do that. the laws that exist and the supreme court decisions that have upheld those laws or part of the laws allow this sort of back and forth in the public sphere when it comes to ads. if it were up to me, because -- it is not something i would want to do. i understand the desire to have a say in the public sphere and buying ads on tv is a way to do it. if it were up to me, because i'm here, i might as well bring this up. there are ways to come up with more consensus picks for the supreme court. so you have at the state level and even the lower administration, you have carter

on this and governor palin on this when she was governor of alaska for 18 months. judicial nominating commissions. you generally have three on the left, three on the right, three in the middle, come together, find a consensus, find someone that could unite the country and is supported by individuals in both parties. i believe these individuals exist. i know we live in hyper-partisan times and you see these anti-bork ads or whoever obama picks or whoever after him picks. i think in general you have to find somebody who grew up in a certain political stream and maintained that path throughout his whole life. it just isn't helpful to the institution, which is already polarized and politicized enough. brian: let's go back before gabe roth was born, 1968. this was a man named abe fortis. abe fort is was a personal -- fortis was a personal political friend of lyndon johnson, put on the court, and then lyndon johnson wanted him to be chief

justice. here is strom thurmond talking about him in 1968. he did not make it. [video clip] strom: i did not support him when he became an associate justice. i have seen nothing since then to cause me to change my views. to loose ly opposed legalities. i am opposed to congress writing in the defense branch. i'm strongly opposed to this teaching in schools and colleges. i'm strongly opposed to the supreme court, the federal government invading the rights of the states and justice fortis has participated in decisions that do the very things i just mentioned. brian: similar to senator kennedy's speech. we call it slashing and burning, really going after them personally. any -- in all your conversations about the court, do you ever here

-- hear people talk about those days? gabe roth: absolutely, the fortis nomination and the bork nomination are definitely two flashpoints when you think about how the nomination process has become politicized and what chief justice roberts was talking about at the new england school of law in the clip you played a few minutes ago. the folks i feel like on the right, bork is a rallying cry. fortis was a little bit different given his close political alliances with lyndon johnson, and he was getting paid from this nonprofit group, $10,000 a year to do something on the side. that was a little bit different. the fortis nomination got derailed for reasons that were more the character as opposed to political or constitutional beliefs. but, yeah, those are definitely flashpoints that still reverberate today. you have, over the years, a number of individuals you can think of, clarence thomas,

harriet miers, who either went poorly or got derailed because of partisan attacks. brian: well, actually, that was in 1968, which was an election year. richard nixon got to appoint warren berger, who became chief justice. heavy politics in all of this. what's your view of what you're hearing right now on capitol hill and from the white house? gabe roth: i am hearing that it is going to be a long, slow year in the senate judiciary committee. that it's going to be -- you know, the nominee is going to be held up and whoever wins the white house in november better get ready to appoint, appoint potentially a few new justices given the current age. not only is there the scalia vacancy but you are talking about three other justices who are 75 or older. that's breyer, ginsburg, and kennedy. the next president has the potential to appoint a handful of justices.

so it's my hope that while this -- i mean, this is an election year. it's always an election year, right? after time the voters will reject this zero-sum game and the senate will come together to figure out how to put through a nominee. at least maybe not confirm them but have a hearing. i think just the basic building blocks of democracy should go away because there is a ontested election coming up. and a number of vacancies in the coming years with the senate judiciary committee. they have a whole number of issues. the people who lead this committee, grassley on the right, and leahy on the left, they've been in the senate for a thousand years. they worked together on 100,000 issues and this should be no different. i know it seems like there's an awful lot of stakes given the current makeup of the court but americans deserve a full

supreme court. just like you wouldn't want to fill a team without second baseman, you would not want the supreme court with only eight justices. brian: let's go back to 2005. here's harry reid. the leader for the democrats in the senate, talking about that particular time when george w. bush was president. [video clip] senator reid: nowhere in that document does it say the senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. it says appointment shall be made with the advice and consent of the senate. that's very different than saying every nominee receives a hearing. brian: he's talking differently today. gabe roth: completely differently. but as points made by, i want to say, there's a -- senator biden -- then senator biden from 1992, republicans throwing out there, that is the same thing. it is funny to see harry reid,

even just the way -- the sentence comes out, the president shall or president obama is saying, the president shall. even that emphasis on that sentence talking about from the constitution talking about how you figure out these vacancies, the emphasis is on a different sill bill and a different word depending -- syllable and a different word depending who the speaker is. brian: matching up very quickly with his counterpart in the republican party, mitch mcconnell. [video clip] senator mcconnell: democratic colleagues talk about the so-called thurmoned rule, which by the way, doesn't exist. senator specter reverend it thoroughly and there's no such rule. but anyway, this seeming obsession with this rule that doesn't exist is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are waiting to fill badly eeded vacancies.

brian: what's the impact of one side one year, one side on the other year? how much do this impact the political campaign and the public? gabe roth: yeah, it is errible. the idea that the gridlock and dysfunction in one branch would sink into another branch is something that i would not have expected. thinking about this even a few months ago. hopefully though, one potential silver lining is the idea that the supreme court becomes a larger issue within the presidential race, right? more and more candidates -- well, there are fewer and fewer candidates but candidates spend more time talking about what they see in the nominee, and those who are going to the polls think about the supreme court now. grant it, i wouldn't necessarily want hem to think about this on

partisan lines, but at least they are thinking about the supreme court in day-to-day political life. voters are. i think that is a potential benefit for the vacancy this year. and mcconnell saying one thing and reid saying one thing and those clips were from however years ago. brian: it was 2008. gabe roth will be chief justice roberts, the first time he was nominated for the d.c. circuit, he was -- the clock ran out on him. he was nominated i think the first time early in the bush years, and it was before a recess. there are individuals on supreme court, in other words, right now when that happened to them to when they were lower court judges. nothing new, just that gridlock is sinking over from one branch to another. brian: let me ask you this, and this is speculation. if hillary clinton is elected president, would she rather

have a nominee confirmed this year or when she has a chance to name them? gabe roth: i mean, i think she would probably confirm -- she would probably prefer her own nominee. brian: she is saying on the campaign trail that this nominee should be confirmed. gabe roth: that is what all the democrats are saying. in reality though, should hillary win, you know, the coattails will be long, and there is the potential for a flip in the senate. brian: ok. here's a question, though. if this president, obama, nominates somebody for the job, and as you know, the senate is a continuous body, does that person stay there even if he's no longer president if not confirmed? gabe roth: yeah, technically he could still be -- this individual, he or she, could still be nominee. sitting out there waiting. this is probably going to be an individual who has a very busy

job so they will go back to sitting on the d.c. circuit or being attorney general of the state or being a member of the u.s. senate, whoever it is. but it is my sense that that individual would have to have a conversation with hillary or marco or donald. they will figure it out come january. but this is a very real potential for obama and hillary not seeing eye to eye in who they would want the next nominee to be. so i would not necessarily expect obama's nominee will be clinton's nominee should she win in november. brian: here is an issue to fix the court is dealing with, and it has to deal with a lifetime -- i am going to show a clip of justice breyer, who appeared on the stephen colbert show in september of 2015, and get your reaction to what he's saying here. [video clip]

stephen: what's it like to be a supreme court justice? is it a good job? justice breyer: it is a job, especially when you get older, you take every minute of it very seriously. and it calls for you to put forth your best every single minute. [applause] stephen: lifetime appointment, would you recommend that for everyone? [laughter] because that is job security. [laughter] justice breyer it is absolutely true. i think of my father, because my father's favorite advice to me was, stay on the payroll. [laughter] brian: now, after they reach a certain age and having spent 15 years on the court, they get lifetime -- same salary they get sitting on the court. what's your opinion of how long should they serve? gabe roth: i'd like to see 18

years. i think 18 years is long enough for the justices to have a number of influential decisions to make their mark on the court, make their mark on history, but not so long as it becomes footal. the justices that left the court and were on the bench for 30 years, antonin scalia, justice john paul stevens was there for 35, william rehnquist was there for 33, sandra day o'connor, 24. especially when the branches are so paralyzed that nothing is getting done in congress and congress and the executive clearly are not seeing eye to eye on those things, the supreme court is vested with this outsized amount of power. and this court sitting on the -- and this individual sitting on the court for -- unfettered for 30, 35 years, it just doesn't pass the smell test. we want 18 years. every two years a new nominee. not an election year. to harken back to mitch

mcconnell and harry reid, i -- we want it in an odd-numbered year, in the summer, not when the court is in session, and it would be staggered. every two years there is a new nominee. it would lower the temperature of these political nominee hearings which is something justice roberts would support. and over time these regular appointments would be, god forbid another justice passes way unexpectedly, you'd have a protocol and you know when and how vacancies would be filled. brian: what does require an amendment to the constitution? gabe roth: i don't think it would. there is some debate about this but there is an article saying they hold their office during good behavior and office to be defined as office as federal judge, they would be federal judges for life especially where eight of the nine are federal judges. it makes sense giving the job requirements of the day. so they would stay -- federal

judges would stay on for life and congress would pass a life only 18 years of which could be served on the supreme court. i think that would do two things. one, you won't have these baby justices like clarence thomas 40. as 39 or roberts and kagan were nominated when they were 49 or 50. you would have individuals with more life experience and more on the bench. you also have the ability to have former justices serving out in the world, riding circuit like they used to, going back to the district like o'connor is doing in arizona. hearing cases at lower court levels, teaching, imparting their knowledge of how the federal bench works. i think there's huge value, just like having former presidents coming out and supporting philanthropic issues. there is a huge benefit having presidents out there. brian: anybody on capitol hill that will put this kind of legislation in the hopper?

gabe roth: not that i know of right now. i think there are individuals who potentially would support it. as far as i know, there's no built -- a bill on this has not been drafted. brian: justice sotomayor back in 2013 appeared on "the view," and i wanted to run an excerpt of it and ask what you think of justices appearing on programs like stephen colbert and "the view." [video clip] >> i can't wear those. >> when lawyers come to the supreme court, there is nine of us sitting at a bowed desk, you call it a bench and you see the >> and they come in. they are bright in the faces. do you know that the tables have been turned on me today? i have five of you and my stomach is churning. >> we are so happy to have you

on and we all read your book. i saw you before you came back, you said, just call me sonia, but i cannot. do people call you justice? >> it has become my new first name. my friends call me sonia. .

they are funny and engaging. the supreme court press office doesn't release their public schedule. when i worked for a state official, every night we sent out a press release. so-and-so, governor so-and-so is appearing at this place in this time. you are more than welcome to come. justices don't do that. there was an article in "usa today" that said justices rock on the road if you can find them. how much i have learned from kagan's speech at harvard or clarence thomas' speech the other day, you learn so much from them, you want to know when they are going to be appearing in public.

i am fine with them going on the view and colbert. it is good for the american people to know them as public figures, making huge decisions. but there is irony given that they don't allow cameras in the courtroom. he second that they have a book, there relating to it. the second any justice has a book to sell, they are on "the view" or colbert, because i saw in the supreme court gift shop yesterday, something about how the justices relate to loans, international law. the fact that they are running to the cameras when they can make some money off of it versus the day that they work, being closed off from the public via the broadcast media ban is a little ironic. brian: i will put on the screen a list of public officials and how much money they are paid every year and ask you about this. you can see it up on the screen. president makes $400,000, has

for years. vice president $237,000. speaker of the house $223,000. speaker majority, minority leaders make $193,000. regular members make up $174,000. what's unusual, it used to be on a parity basis, the supreme court chief justice makes $260,000. the supreme court justices make $249,00. what you think of that? gabe roth: given how much money highly skilled attorneys are paid, they will take pay cuts. chief justice john roberts was working, he did work for hogan and heart, it is hogan and lovely now. he is making upwards of $1 million to $2 million a year. he was a top appellate attorney when he was there. that is money well spent. i think it is a bargain, given that they could be making a

whole heck of a lot more in today's economy, given each one of their skill and intelligence. that doesn't necessarily bother me. one thing we talk about budget and funding that bothers me is each year, and we are going into a budget season now, c-span will broadcast the budget hearings for the supreme court, which i appreciate. the supreme court asked for another million dollars or so each year. to me what i don't understand is two ways, one is that money is never tied to anything specific in terms of transparency measures. they are not saying we need an extra $1 million to study the effects of potentially incorporating the ethics rules that all the rest of the federal judges has to follow. we have got something called federal judicial center. why not spend $1 million on that? studying one of my reforms, one of the transparency reforms that most americans support. when congress is appropriating however it does for the supreme

court, they are not talking about money needed for anything. they just write a blank check. all budgets have continuing esolutions, they are not but that money is fine. the money i am concerned is the $75 million of taxpayer money that the american public does not get anything out of that in terms of accountability and transparency. congress has the right to change that. brian: you have said that television in the court. it's an important issue for you all. i want to going ba to elena kagan, confirmation hearings, june 9, 2010, and here what you have to say. >> the reason i think cameras should be in the courtroom, when you see what happens there, it's an inspiring sight. all nine justices, they are so prepared, they are so smart,

they are so thorough, they are so engaged, the questioning is rapid fire. you are really seeing an institution of government that work. i think, in a really admirable way. i think -- of course the issues are important ones. some of them will put you to sleep, but a lot of them, the american people should be really concerned about and should be interested in. i think it would be a great thing for the institution and more important i think it would be a great thing for the american people. brian: what does she say now? mr. roth: all nine justice, current justices, were in favor of cameras before they were against it. they were all for it before they were against it. in the confirmation hearing, this is the same dance that happened with sonia sotomayor. even chief roberts. when he answered that question he talked about senator fred thompson from my home state of tennessee was in the senate and

roberts' line was something like, well, senator thompson says that tv is nothing to worry about. o i guess it's ok. so nowadays, roberts and sotomayor and kagan all are against having broadcast media in the courtroom. honestly, i think it is generational. once you get a number of justices who grew up having cameras in front of them their whole lives, alito had cameras when he was a federal judge and had no problem, kagan was in the obama white house, there are cameras everywhere, sotomayor has allowed c-span cameras to enter the court to film different hearings was recently on data collection two months ago. i think that, yes, i feel like until they are unanimous, until the justices are unanimous, there may not be a change. but there are some cracks, and it is not necessarily that they

all are sold on being against it nowadays. brian: justice kennedy will soon be in his 80th year. here's what he said in 2013 when i asked about this. >> my position is, and i think a number of the other justices, that we are a teaching institution. and we teach by not having a television in there, because we teach that we are judged by what we write. the reason that we give. we feel, number one, that our institution works. and i, in my own view, it would be considered reluctance to introduce a dynamic where i would have the instinct that one of my colleagues asked a question because we are on elevision. i just don't want that insidious dynamic interconvenient between me and my colleagues when we only have

a half-hour. brian: does he have a good point? gabe roth: no, he is essentially making the opposite point. the supreme court is a teaching institution. if you are an appellate attorney in california and you may be arguing a case at any appellate court, whether it be the supreme court of california or the ninth circuit court of appeals or even the supreme court, you are going to want to watch the best people in the country doing their jobs, those are the advocates who argue before the supreme court anti-nine justices on the bench. unless you can pay and get a plane ticket to d.c., get a hotel, it is cost and time prohibitive. i went to the supreme court the other day, because this is my job and i set my alarm for 4:00 a.m., i was able to set that, stand in line for five hours, and go in. the vast majority of the country cannot see their government in action, and that is ridiculous. as for the teaching point, not only appellate attorneys, but thousands of law students across the country would learn

a great deal from the way the justices interact with one another in the way the attorneys interact. one other point, when i was at the supreme court the other day, had there been cameras, what you would have seen was justice kagen, whose clip you just played, sharing notes with justice athleteo. we think, total opposite of the ideological spectrum. same thing, justice thomas and justice beyer. they were talking about -- you will see these, and they sit based on seniority, with roberts in front, most senior -- actually, they are moving the chairs in a few days. kennedy, thomas. they sit seniority. so it is not like the right-wing sits on one side and left on the other. you see justices from ideological totally different backgrounds talking to one another, grappling with one another, asking questions. justice kagen said justice athleteo said this and i agree. what about this?

it would teach the country not only how an appellate argument works, which is very different from a trial, that goes on for days and weeks, supreme court cases are an hour tops, and then they would also see the fact the justices are interacting in way which maybe breaks down our preconceived notions about the makeup of the institution. brian: keep in mind with kennedy said about education. here is just what justice scalia had to say back in 2012. >> television in the court. television in the court. the reason i bring it up is because congress has talked about ordering the court to go on television. why are you so against it? >> brian, i am for it when i first joined the court and switched and remained on that side of it. i am against it because i don't believe, as the proponents of television in the court assert, that the purpose

of televising our hearings would be to educate the american people. that is not what it would end up doing. if i really thought it would educate the american people, i would be all for it. >> what most of the american people would see is 32nd, 50 second takeouts, and it would not be characteristic of what we do. >> yes. gabe roth: i have seen that clip played a number of times, and probably have it bookmarked on my web browser. the reactions. this is already happening, it is called quotes and print stories. when the audio is available, audio is being taken out. that's already happening. i feel like if you had the entire record on video, that would happen -- that might still happen, but you also have the ability as an american

citizen to sit there. it is not like we are talking about 12, 15 week trials. hese are half an hour, our long arguments, the best arguments. it was just like the last time c-span filmed up in new york, this is what the judge said, it is an appellate argument. the judges will interrupt the attorneys. 90% of what goes on are the briefs that had been written by both sides that we the judges have read ahead of time. the teaching element, what kennedy said, the cameras, is not that the american people are not smart enough to understand what is going on. that is insulting. brian: have you had any conversations with the justices in the court about this? gabe roth: not directly. i saw justice stevens in chicago and asked him about

live audio, streaming the audio. right now, the audio of the cases is reported as it unfolds it is put online at the end of the week. used to be the end of the term, ow it's the end of the week. we have written a number of letters to the court trying to get same-day audio for some of the higher profile cases, abortion, immigration reform, that sort of thing. o, yeah. i'm sorry, i lost my train of thought. brian: it is normal. the question was, about whether or not -- i am going to do the same thing. it was about whether or not you had any meetings with justices. gabe roth: i think about poor old justice stephens who i spoke with.

then justice beyer similarly said he would support streaming audio of the arguments, which i think is a step in the right direction. he said the supreme court on the radio, yeah, i would be in favor of that. not really understanding what live streaming online would be. he sort of got the concept if not the way it actually, the way it would actually happen. we are trying to get to them. we know they know about fix the court, and we will keep trying to ask them. it didn't happen this year, but when justice breyer and kennedy testified before congress last year, we three questions their way via members of ongress. it is not my style to ambush them, but we are finding other ways to get in front of them. brian: how long will the venture fund support you? gabe roth: that is a good

question. brian: how much do you have now? gabe roth: through the end of he term. this summer and then got to reapply for additional funding. brian: was it their idea or your idea that you set up this organization? gabe roth: a sort of combination. they did not have a whole lot of money, but they funded the coalition for court transparency. that was just trying to get cameras in the court. an then we have conversations about fixing the court. that has been going on for about 15, 16 months. i will apply for more money in the fall and hope to get it, and with the very least, i have done an ok job of raising these issues in the public sphere, and in the months and years we will make a dent in getting

these back. brian: how long do you want to do it? gabe roth: it's not a question -- it is funny, we get these questions, where do you see yourself in five years? what do you think about? i don't really think about hat. probably much to the chagrin of many people in my life. i enjoy this work. anything that is intellectually challenging and involves a lot of writing, i enjoyed, so i am really enjoying try to wrap my head around these issues. a lot of people have been trying this for a while. c-span has been trying to get broadcast media in the courts. judicial watch and center for responsive politics and common cause and alliance for justice have been trying to get financial disclosures online. none of these groups of the court just focus on the supreme court. fix the courts unique perspective, just focusing on the court. as far as time, i will do it as long as it takes. brian: what does the death of scalia had done for this

discussion? you referenced travel and all of that. gabe roth: it is still a lot. a lot of people are talking about the supreme court than they were a few weeks ago. primarily, really, on this whole issue of lifetime tenure, the intelligence of lifetime enure. a "boston globe" columnist art fully said, the founders messed this one up. there shouldn't be lifetime tenure for the supreme court. the founders weren't anticipating living into their 90's. staying on the bench when lifetime tenure was written into the constitution. so i think that when it comes to how his death has been most impactful in my work, it is his lifetime tenure. you have seen people across the political spectrum, media spectrum, coalescing around this idea that lifetime tenure no longer works and an 18-year term is more rational. brian: how much about their travel can you see, can we the public see?

gabe roth: not a whole lot. every may, the justices, just like president, vice president, members of congress, are required to release their annual financial disclosure report. they are required to file it on may 15. it usually comes out a few weeks later. on that report, they report to their travel of the year. for example, justice kennedy goes to austria and paid by a university to speak in austria. it will say, justice kennedy went to austria on these days, and they reimbursed for food, lodging, travel. that's it. very vague. we don't know if they got a big donation from somebody with political powers that sent him there. we don't know and potentially will never know that we would like to know. it is very little. it is also unclear. unlike the president and the executive office and congress, there is no ethics office.

there was no travel office that says you, president obama, are going to this country. you, congressman so and so, are going to this part of the worrell. what are the ethical implications of that. who is funding your trips? who is paying for the junkets? we think that's a proper. given there are questions around the trip that justice scalia went on that there will be calls in congress to open up their travel records or ensure that the travel that they are listing on their annual financial disclosure reports eflects reality. brian: what were the issues around the justice scalia trip? gabe roth: the ones that have been raised are the fact that he, we don't know who paid for his private plane to get there. we know that he flew with u.s. marshals either to new orleans and houston and switched plans and up to el paso via private plane. not sure who paid for that. the person who owns the ranch

on which he stayed actually had that case before the supreme court. it was denied in october. it wasn't a huge case, but the fact that an individual who did go before the court is paying for a trip for the justice for months after that case came up for consideration raises red flags. the fact that we know so little really speaks to the fact that there should be more transparency around their travels. brian: right after his death february 19, the washington post wrote an article about his death. when justices do travel outside washington -- gabe roth: yes. that is a lot.

and sometimes, these trips, often these trips are completely valid. if you are supreme court justice and you are asked to speak at, you know, the university of oklahoma, the university of oklahoma allows and agrees to reimburse you for your airfare and for your meals and your lodging. why not? as we spoke about a minute ago, they are making $1 million, $2 million in the private sector. they make a nice salary. and they are limited and how much money they are allowed to make from outside activity. they will limit to around $35,000. they can make as much as they want from book sales. but a separate. when sonia sotomayor wrote that book, she got separate money. because the justices' salaries and income is limited, you want to reimburse the university of oklahoma? great.

the bottom line is, what we know about ends and where things start to get murky. we know he went to the university of oklahoma, but did he stop by some thing else when e was in the area? there is a fine line between maintaining a certain level of privacy. i don't know when he visits his grandkids, that is dumb. but they are paid for by taxpayer money, and we should know more about who is funding it when they travel across the country. brian: if somebody was to follow how you are doing, how do they get there? gabe roth: fixthecourt.com. our website is updated almost daily with our work, reforms, and ways individuals, who are interested, can get involved. there is a button in the top right. there is a seven or eight

different actions they can take right there. congressman, judicial body, trying to get them to change internal policies that were hopefully trickle up to the supreme court. they can tell their local ap writer and say the justice is coming to their town and try to cover the justice, because right now they don't release their public schedule. a different bunch of activities there. we are big on social media. we love to get more likes and follows on facebook and twitter. brian: one last quick question, is there a donate button? gabe roth: there is. for the moment, save your money. you know, give it to early childhood education or a hunger or poverty initiative. if we need to start soliciting funds, i will in a more

aggressive way, but right now i think we are doing ok in that regard. it is not a very expensive venture. that is a part of the fun of this job is that social media and other ways, it is pretty easy to be active without spending a lot of money. brian: the name of the organization is fix the courts. our guest has been its everything, gabe roth. gabe roth: thank you for having me. [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] >> for free transcripts or give us your comments about this frame, visit us at "q&a."org. "q&a" programs are also avoidable at c-span podcast.

>> sunday on "q&a" northwestend university economics professor, robert gordon, discusses his book "the rise and fall of american growth." he looks at the growth in the american standard of living between 1870 and 1970. and questions whether we'll see anything like it again. "q&a," sunday nights at 8:00 and 11:00 eastern time. u.s. house dwaffles in at 2:00 eastern. opening the day's session and giving one-minute speeches. legislative work starts at 4:00 eastern and members will debate six bills, including a short-term re-authorize of the f.a.a. we'll have that live here on c-span. the pro steeler group, a pack, is throwing its annual meeting in washington, d.c. this afternoon republican presidential candidate, john kasich, donald trump, and ted cruz will speak to the conference. can you watch that live starting at 5:00 eastern over on c-span2.

a discussion now of the legacy of president ronald reagan. this 30-minute conversation was part of the 2016 conservative political action conference in national harbor, maryland. >> our next channel is timeless principles. the reagan legacy endures. president welcome the founders of young america foundation, ron robinson.

>> i got white socks on. >> good afternoon. does c pack still appreciate ronald bage? -- reagan? that's great to hear because ronald reagan played a big role n formulating cpack and cr cpac successful, first and former governor of california when he started coming regularly in the 197 e's, and eventually as president of the united states. it's appropriate that we have a cpac banquet in ronald reagan's honor. one way to really know what ronald reagan thought of cpac is in his own words. and ronald reagan wrote about cpac in his speaking my mind, where he had his top speeches. a couple of them at least were from cpac -- to cpac audiences,

particularly the one in 1981 and again in 1985. when ronald reagan wrote about those speeches, this is what he said about his cpac audience. he said, they were the people who fought for the cause of individual liberty and freedom when government seemed to be getting more powerful every day. they were the people who persevered, and i can't tell you how much i admire them for the -- their tenacity and their hope. we were often ridiculed and usually dismissed. such treatment only strengthened our ideals and our resolve. interesting before his printed copy of the 1985 cpac speech, ronald reagan said, these friends were the basis of everything. i was trying to do. he said he could -- this peach to cpac, he said, for him, could actually serve as the inaugural address to his second term.

of course as you recall it was a very cold day and he didn't give a traditional inaugural address. that's how much cpac meant to ronald reagan. we have a tremendous panel here today of reagan experts. each is a reagan scholar in his own right. each has books in the "new york times" bestseller authors. and all of whom have tremendous insights into ronald reagan. all of them have multiple books on ronald reagan. let me introduce them in -- from my left to your right. peter is currently the president of the government institutional -- accountability institute. his books including victory, reagan's ward, grinning with the gipper a. and written a couple books with cap weinberger. in the middle seat is craig chairly.

he's the reagan scholar at the eureka college, ronald reagan's college, as well as a trustee. he has a number of books including reagan's revolution, rendezvous with destiny. last act, the final years in the meerging legacy of ronald reagan. and dr. paul is the professor of political science at gromb ity. has the author of god and ronald reagan, the crusader ronald reagan and the fall of communism. a book closely related to ronald reagan, the judge on bill clark. and 11 principles of a reagan conservative. and i would be remiss if i didn't mention party schweitzer also cooperated on a book, the reagan presidency, assessing the man and his legacy. we truly have an outstanding panel of individuals to give us

their perspective on ronald reagan. what i'd like to do is ask each to share with us what they think is the most important reagan principle for today's day. today's age. we'll begin with peter, craig, and then paul. peter: probable lith principle, or character or reagan quality i think is most important was reagan's fearlessness. that's not just in terms of principles and ideas, but also his physical courage. there's a story that lynn, his aide told us, which is actually of course in reagan's way humorous, about when reagan was governor of california he was visiting the university of california at berkeley and there were very aggressive violent protesters outside. security wanted to take reagan behind the back of the building. and reagan said, no, i'm going to the front. so as the story is told they are walking out there and the crowd is chanting, "make love not war.

" and live said, i am governor i'm nervous. and reagan says don't worry about it, they keep walking. there is a when i have of marijuana in the amplete the crowd chants, "make love, not war" they are closing in on reagan. lynn is getting worried. reagan says don't worry about it. and they are screaming, "make love, not war." reagan calmly turned to him and said, lynn, don't wore bring t they don't look like they are capable of doing either one. that's kind of the is coolness under fire that i think reagan exhibited. that's a very important quality today. ron: sound like he would have fit into last night's presidential debate. craig. craig: that time in high school physics when i didn't fall asleep i remember the professor saying that power can either be destroyed or created, it can only be moved around. and reagan was in many ways a child of the enlightenment. he believed -- he didn't

believe man was at the certainty of the universe, but believe in the god inspired individual and thus he was very much infused by the american revolution. ultimately he believed in the individual. and the individual's more important than the state, spiritual individual is more important than the stay. if you look at the speeches at cpac, you look at his radio commentaries, speeches at president, it was at cpac here in 1982 he was making the case for his tax cuts. he said, yes, they are about the economy. and they are about getting the economy moving. but the tax cuts are really about moving power and authority away from the state and toward the individual. that's a very profound thought. and two, who talks like that any more? who understands that the allocation of power, the way it was intended by the framers and

founders, was not to be concentrated in washington but instead among the many and various individuals and states and localities. i think ultimately reagan was far more intellectual, i'm glad you told that story, i tell i make the case, we almost overintellectualize reagan to get to the point where we forget, like george shultz says, you have to remember, this guy was a lot of fun. and reagan was fun. i think that that's part also of a true american conservative is that it's not just about individuality, it's not about the spiritual individual, but also about the happy individual. i think that obvious that came to the morning in america and all the other things especially with reagan is that optimism was very much not just because he was a happy guy, because it was a part of his ideology, because he knew that happy people were productive people. and productive people produce

growing economies. growing economies produce the money to buy the material to build up the military to then go on and defeat an evil empire. he knew it all started with the ndividual. ron: you wrote a book on 11 principles. if had you to choose one that would be important what would it be? paul: i can't choose one. i picked 11. there are a number of different things. one a character trait would be his likibility. and his winsome quality. if you are going to win a republican in 2016 he has to be liked by the wider population, right? you don't win 49 out of 50 states by only winning a narrow group of conservatives or republicans. but in terms of principles, i have to cheat. i attempted to say freedom. i think a lot of people would say freedom.

bye reagan understood that freedom means space. and reagan talked about the twin beacons of faith and freedom that brighten the american sky. if you have freedom without faith, then freedom is rudderless. freedom without faith is the las vegas strip rather than the city of god. and reagan a number of times gave speeches where he said, each reinforces the other. each one needs the other. and he said despotism may govern without faith, but liberty can no. the he said faith is need in democratic societies more than any other. unfree society, you have the freedom to do almost anything you want. that being the case, you need the moral rudder and moral compass that comes with faith to navigate freedom in the proper way. [applause] ron: ronald reagan's farewell address from the oval office urged the american people to reach out and teach young people about american history. and he is part of american

history today. when you look at the history courses today, a good indication of what is taught can be found in the major study guides, something i used extensively when i was in college, and kaplan, and princeton are the big threefment they dominate the market. here's what they say about ronald reagan. they said he was an admirer of herbert hoover. he was a believer in trickle-down economics. they said his tax cuts was for principally for corporations but the implication was it was for rich corporations. and they basically suggested he didn't win the cold war, it would have happened anyway. that gore chamb deserves the in considered as read -- gorbachev deserves the main credit. and president bush in an inappropriate time after the end of the reagan career,

criticizing economic policy as voodoo economics, which we know he criticized during the campaign leading up to his election in 1980 before his economic policy was put putt in place. which of the misconceptions about ronald reagan is being taught in american history today disturbs each of you the most? ny of those? peter: for me the notion that he's a simpleton. he didn't understand that much. that he sort of was an actor who read from cue cards. the history on this was very clear, clear from the beginning. the work that paul and craig have done clearly indicates this is a guy that was animated by ideas. more so than really pretty much any other 20th century american politician. he was motivated and animated by ideas. the motion that rage was a simpleton who didn't understand ideas, wasn't concerned about

them, to me is the one that matters the most. and i think that's what made him so powerful. he once said i'm not a great man. i just believe in great ideas. and that, i think, humility is a great reflection on reagan. the notion that the ideas of individualism, freedom, liberty, the thing that paul writes in his book, the 11 principles of a reagan conservative, those are the things he embraced and understood them in a profoundly deep and philosophical way. ron: ? craig? craig: the bad news -- reagan said in 1964 he said, the trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they are ignorant, it's they know so much it isn't so. that is the problem with american high school, college text books. i looked at one of my daughter's a couple years ago and it was filled with errors and things like that. that's the bad news. the gad news is that if they wrote reagan history the three

of us would be out of a job. there's a balance. the fact is is that we have to write history because american history is being treated so badly by the people who write high school college textbooks. but peter is right. if you go through his radio commentaries, if you look through his columns, which by the way he wrote all his radio commentaries, 999 of them -- 1,006 of them, he wrote every one of them. these are 30-second commentaries. they were five days a week. all through the 1970's. i remember i was in college at the time. my father listened avidly every time at noon on whn radio in syracuse, new york, this is ronald reagan. it would be a five-minute commentary. in those days it wasn't like now where technology is you push a button and send out an

audio feed to a thousand different radios. they did it on reel to reel and also on old records that had to be sent out from harry o'connor studio in lightning lightning in the 19 -- los angeles in the 1970's. would he write five-minute commendaries. you try to write five five-minute commentaries week after week after week. with his come lums, which appeared twice a week on king's feature syndicate, he got a little help sometimes. most of the times he wrote them himself. peter's right, if you look at these columns and listen to the radio commentaries, and listen to his speeches, he spoke at cpac every year from 1974 to 1988. in 1976 and 1980, when he was in new hampshire running for president he missed. even then he sat and recorded messages. that's how much he thought of cpac. it is filled, he quotes, tennyson and emerson and quotes franklin and he quotes thomas

payne, his faste philosopher -- his favorite if i also perfect -- philosopher. he was probably the most intellectually curious president of the 20th century. maybe since abraham lincoln. as i said the good news is because they get it wrong, we have to get it right. otherwise the three of us would be writing books about rutherford b. haste. -- haze -- hase ddhayes. paul: he wrote all of his own speeches. up until before he was president he didn't have speech writers. he wrote an enormous amount of letters throughout his life, including as president. i'm blown away by. our colleague, at carg nagy mellon, she thinks he may have written more letters than any president since jefferson. which is quite possibly true. and we have been through this. i have sat in the reagan library and just tried to --

some of the real gems you find out about reagan are letters to ruth wilson of idaho. somebody -- not the letters to brezhnev or thatcher or john paul ii. i try to sit there in the reagan library and read through a year of them. and i would get through two or three months. there are that many. he must have written four or five a day. at some point. when you look at his schedule as president. it's unbelievably rigorous. i don't know how he was in his 70's throughout the presidency. he had the energy level of a 30-year-old. he really did. the motion that he was a dummy is probably the most ridiculous thing. i think frankly it's been put to rest. and also, too, younger people, if you get flak from your professors on this, ask them how does a president, conservative like reagan, when 44 out of 50 states against a

incumbent, and then 49 out of 50 re-elected, when there is a majority of the nation was registered democrats. he won in landslide. somebody -- if you are a professor thinks that reagan was an extremist, your professor is an extremist. [applause] ron: appreciate your point about the letters. it's not just one letter and it was done. at the reagan ranch we have a collection with lorraine wagner, over 50 years of cordance. a -- course. a lot of these cases it's very sustained, starting with a young person earn going through the balance of their time. one of the big issues in washington today is the ability of congress and the president to get along. one of the current popular items to say about ronald reagan is he knew how to get along with tip o'neill.

and that is almost -- that has almost become mythical theoretically. what is your take each of you on the reagan's ability to work with congress and the flip side of that? was congress particularly in the last two years when it was totally democrat willing to work with ronald reagan? peter: that's a great point. i do think the democratic party in the 1980's, you had this strange creature called the conservative democrat that was willing to work with reagan. i think you don't have that today. i do think that reagan had an ability to stick to his principles and still get along personally with his opponent. the example i would give is not congress but during the cold war with gore chaff. gore chaff and -- gosh chap and rage got a -- gosh chamb and reagan got along very well. let me tell you general secretary why we despise your system.

he had those kinds of conversations. so i think the key formulation from reagan is he did not compromise on his principles. he recognized sometimes he had to compromise on policies to get them done. but i think he also had the ability to get along with people that he didn't necessarily agree with. which i think is a character fault you don't see in the white house today. ron: we failed to mention the direries. craig: direries are very important. reagan wrote them for eight years religiously every night. and they were released the last couple years. it's just a treasure-trove of information about people, places, but also it was a lot of humor in there. he had a bad meeting with -- there was a senator from connecticut, who was a very liberal republican. very large. very pompous. and reagan wrote in his diary one night, he called him a pompous, no good, fat head. he had been a pain in the neck

in the cabinet meeting. another time he called him a schmuck. we spend so much time pushing back against reagan mythology. one of the things we have to push back, at least i do, is this idea that reagan and tip o'neill were great friends. they weren't. take my word for it. o'neill in his autobiography, wrote, devoted an entire chapter about the most god awful terrible things about not just ronald reagan but mrs. reagan. called her the queen of beverly hills. said he was the dumbest man he served under as speaker of the house. it was vicious. it was personal. this idea they got along. they only did two deals together. they did 82 deal which reagan immediately regretted. and they did social security reform, which reagan knew he had to do. the political conditions were not there. he knew what he could do and knew what he couldn't do. and he couldn't reform social

security. couldn't privatize social security. he changed his position on that in the 1960's. he knew the political environment was such, the new deal still believed in social security and social security system was going to be there to provide for their retirement. he went along with the tax increase. but this idea that reagan and tip o'neill were beer drinking friends, it's a complete myth. it's been pushed by chris matthews, another poor leftist historian. [applause] craig: never trust a liberal with history. if you want to look for bipartisan -- especially conservative history. if you want foe look for bipartisan cooperation, you got a much better example with bill clinton and newt gingrich and the 104th congress. a much better example of bipartisan cooperation than you had with reagan and tip o'neill. reagan got stuff through congress almost in spite of tip

o'neill. like for instance the 1986 tax bill. o'neill was retiring. did he it mostly to dan rostenkowski, chairman of the house ways and means committee. the boll weevil democrats who got it through the house of representatives. he didn't get it because of any great love and affection between himself and tip o'neill. ron: paul? paul: reagan was incredibly charity toible people he disagreed with. that's really something that, again, candidates today can learn from. the fact that he was a liberal in hollywood in the 1940's and 1950's an f.d.r. democrat. a bleeding heart liberal. for reagan he would often just say of people who disagreed with him, well, you know, they just don't understand. so he didn't ascribe to them evil motives. he had been there. he had been deluded himself. reagan once found himself a couple times in the 1940's

speaking to communist front groups that he thought were progressive groups. he had been suckered a number of times himself. he was very good at that. also, too, i have to say right now during the campaign, ronald reagan's 11th commandment, thou shall not speak ill of another republican. [applause] paul: sorry i got to say this, but ronald reagan would never be in a debate with fellow republicans, spin to his left and call the guy on his left a liar and spin to the right and call the other guy a choke artist. would never happen. would have never happened. ron: there's been a lot done to recognize ronald reagan. airport named after him here in washington. a lot of highways across the country. young americans foundation. presidential ranch. what do you think is reagan himself would perceive as the best way to recognize his

presidency? peter: first of all, reagan was man of ideas. he would be enormously appreciative of everyone here. that is carrying the torch of liberty. ideas were the thing that mattered to reagan. his faith, his family, and his ideas. the second thing i would say is for any of you out there who have not been to the reagan ranch, i'm going to make a plug for it. if you want to see the true rond reagan as he was, you have to go to the ranch in santa barbara. there is nothing else like it. anybody out there in the audience that's been there raise your hand. you have been to the reagan ranch? you go to cpac and go there. it's a tremendous opportunity to see reagan strip down as he was and his love of the land, his love of the creation around him. you'll see things that he built himself. that just sets him apart remarkably from any other president. ron: craig? craig: the question is his place in history and what he would think. this is a very prideful man.

john patrick digins, a liberal historian and friend of ours, passed away several years ago. in many ways he was the official chronicler of the american left in the 20th century. he wrote about the american labor movement and civil rights movement. his last book is called "ronald reagan, faith, freedom, and the making of history." in his book this liberal professor has come to the conclusion he's one of the four greatest presidents, like washington, lincoln, roosevelt he saved or freed many people. which is ultimately the best it's of test of an american president. i think we have to go to reagan himself. he said in his farewell address, he felt that not only the economic vitality, but also the restoration of american spirit where two of his greatest legacies as far as his presidency. but don't get this idea that reagan was humble, but he was also very, very prideful. i remember in 1992 i was in

houston at the republican convention. and the democratic convention had just taken place. and the democrats were trying to take credit for the fall of communism. reagan is address the crowd. says at one point, who do they mean by we? he never said -- it was george mcgovern who said he would crawl on his hands and knees for peace. those words would never be uttered from ronald reagan's mouth. he believed the soviets were evil. he believed that the united states was good. and that good must defeat evil. but he also believed that he was destined, he believed that he was a very prideful man. this false modesty is silly. ron: paul? paul: reagan called for a politics of principle and principle of politics. he gave a great speech at cpac in february 1977.

takes me 20 seconds to read this. reagan said conservatism is, this the principles of conservatism were sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience and not just one generation. or a dozen. but in all the combined experience of mankind. when we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and what we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found through experience to be ultimately beneficial for individuals. so we believe in eternal, timeless, immutable truths. you don't come up with a new right and new idea and new definition when you stumble out of starbuck's with a grande latte. these ideas, bub lickal -- biblical law, natural law. you got to demand from your politicians, especially republicans who call themselves conservatives, what are the principles? what are they?

is the person a johnny-come-lately to this? what do they really believe? reagan understood this. ron: if each of you had to just give the title of your reagan book that you would recommend to the audience, you have all written multiple books. paul? paul: i guess i'd say, "11 principles of reagan conservative" it's short and you'll get a good idea. craig: my next reagan book. i think "rendezvous with destiny" 1980 campaign. everything comes into fee cuss. everything comes into clarity in that campaign. that is one of the most important campaigns in american history. peter: for me it would be "reagan's war" which chronicles his battle against communist and hollywood and triumph over communism with the collapse of the soviet union. ronn: -- ron: each of these speakers have had great books. they all speak about ronald reagan on college campuses and the young audiences.

appreciate that. i know you speak for young america's foundation and go to college campuses. paul, you teach, craig you teach every day. we appreciate that. thank you so much for being with us here today. [applause] [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]

>> only tell the story once. >> one morning my room filled with light. and it spoke to me. inside from whom room -- >> republican presidential candidate, donald trump, is here in washington today holding a news conference shortly. alex with the daily caller tweeted this picture out. that's inside the under renovation old post office building in washington. that's where mr. trump is about to talk to the press. scheduled to start at 2:15 eastern. and we'll have live coverage once the house is finished with the short opening session. later this afternoon, republican presidential candidates, john kasich, donald trump, and ted cruz are speaking to the apack policy conference. that's under way today here in washington. the pro-israel group holds its annual meeting. our live coverage gets under way at 5:00 eastern on c-span2.

the house today, the they'll gavel in. have short one-minute speeches and come back about 4:00 when they debate six bills, including one that has a short-term re-authorization through july. for the f.a.a. we'll take you live now to capitol hill where the house is about to gavel in. members will open the session with the prayer and pledge and followed by one-minute speeches. once they are done they'll recess and get you that donald trump press conference.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: on let us pray. thank you for giving us another day. they could not find enough words to express trust in you. personal experience of your presence care and abiding presence gave rise to his song, my rock, my fortress, my deliver, my god my rock of refuge, the fullness of my salvation, my stronghold. stir in our hearts today your spirit. touch the soul of this nation that we may see your saving work

in our work and the work of this house. your strength behind our weakness, your purpose in our efforts at laws of justice, your peace drawing all of us in the entire world to lasting freedom. you are ever faithful, o lord worthy of all of our trust, now and forever, may everything we do 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 its approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, the journal stands approved. the ledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from maine. >> 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 will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. lamalfa: after years of extreme drought, california is finally receiving thanks to the good lord and another mother nature, significant rain and snowfall. despite mandatory -- continued mandatory statewide rations, federal agencies are still making decisions that result in the loss of vast amounts of water that stored or decision that is will be harmful to agriculture. five days ago the sacramento river ran so high that enough water to supply over 54,000 people for an entire year flowed past each hour.

while recent storms have improved our water supplies, our largest reservoirs are not yet full. they soon could be. precisely during these times that water agencies need to be cautious and careful in managing these supplies so our reservoirs do become full and we could carry through to the next drought. so, will they allow these reservoirs to become full or let water flow down because of bad flood data or fish needs? we'll see. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. i rise er: mr. speaker, today to recognize march, 2016, as bleeding disorders awareness month. this month marks the 30th anniversary of president reagan's declaration of march, 1986, as hemophilia awareness

month. one of the most troubling bleeding disorders is hemophilia. hemophilia affects roughly 20,000 people in the u.s., and one in 5,000 newborns. treating the disorder is complicated, as well as expensive. as flst no known cure and treatment, may cost $250,000 a year. is er bleeding disorder the vwd which results in bruising, nose bleeds, and excessive bleeding following surgical procedures. dwd occurs equally in men and women and estimated to affect more than three million americans. through this great awareness of bleeding disorders, we can work toward earlier diagnosis and prevention of complications, unnecessary procedures, and disabilities. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maine rise? mr. poliquin: request permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. speaker, our proud state of maine has sent many hardworking, principle leaders to the national stage. senator margaret smith brought commonsense and courage to washington as the first woman to serve in both the u.s. and in the senate. now, many other mainers have served our country with distinction but seldom made the headlines. michael shinay grew up in a middle class family in waterville and was a loyal alum of the university of maine. he was an immensely talented public servant who every day helped american families and businesses during his 30 distinguished years at the u.s. postal service. mike served as postmaster in burlington, vermont, and in the postmaster general's office here in washington.

in 1992 he accepted the thankless job of cleaning up the theft and inside dealings right here at the house post office. he then cut costs and introduced new technology that streamlined this huge, complex mail system. in 1999, mike retired from the postal service and consulted on global mail systems to some of the world's most successful companies. two months ago on january 23, michael j. shinay peacefully passed away surrounded by his loving wife of 39 years and their two wonderful children, katie and jonathan. two months ago maine and america lost a cheerful, hardworking public servant, full of fairness, integrity, and goodness. we will miss mike.

thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i request permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the valor christian high school's varsity girls swimming and diving team on their 4-a state championship win. it was a thrilling win for them. the team scored 320 points to catapult past their competitors. in the quest for the state championship title. senior brook showed tremendous leadership and dedication in her record breaking 50-yard freestyle, 100-yard freestyle, and 200 medley relay, earning her the title of swimmer of the year in the state's 4-a classification. freshman abby finished fourth

in the diving portion of the competition contributing to the team's total points and ultimate state win. the swim team's head coach led a tremendous effort all season long to get the team ready for their state championship performance. earning her the title, swimming coach of the year. i am honored to congratulate these young women and their state championship win. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. raul castro's thugs arrested or detained many cuban pro-democrat sti leaders in an tiss passion of the president's -- anticipation of the

president's time in cuba. the leader of the ladies of white was detained. antonio was detained. some of these activists were invited to participate in the meeting with president obama. two others arrested. a musician arrested. former political prisoner arrested. pastor felicio was arrested yesterday. the castro brothers have shifted their strategy to a catch and release program to intimidate activists who have been placed under house arrest by the repressive apparatus of the regime. president obama says that human rights are important to him, but empty words with no actions to back them up sends the message to the castro regood morning, america to continue -- regime to continue with his repression and castro continues to do so. no surprise there. shame on us, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan arise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . benishek: mr. speaker, today, march 21, is world down syndrome day. this internationally recognized event is setaside to raise public awareness of what down syndrome is. and about the important role that people with down syndrome play in our lives and our communities. according to the national down syndrome society, there are currently about 400,000 people living with down syndrome in the united states alone. these people are faced with elevated risks for many other health conditions and must confront obstacles every day of their lives. organizations like the upper

peninsula down syndrome association in northern michigan helped raise awareness to this condition. through hosting events like the buddy walk, these organizations helped educate the general public and raise funds for programs that benefit those living with down syndrome. in my own life, my family and i are blessed to have my youngest grandson, archie, in our lives. we want archie to have the ability and freedom to be the best archie he can be. we have made tremendous strides in helping those with down syndrome, it is my hope that we continue to improve the quality of life and the opportunity for kids like archie. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks much the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: mr. speaker, the media were quick to cover a national oceanic and atmospheric administration study last year where scientists altered global

surface temperature data to try to refute the two-decade halt in global warming. the "l.a. times," "new york times," and "usa today" all headlined noaa's announcement there was not a halt in global warming. however, a new peer review study, published in the journal "nature" confirms the halt in global warming. according to one of the studies, quote essentially refutes the study. but the many well respected scientists and their findings were ignored by much of the national media, including those that are previously reported there never was a halt in global warming. americans deserve all the facts that surround climate change, not just those that fit the view the national lib bra media wants to promote. -- liberal media wants to promote. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to

take the national hemophilia foundation's bleeding disorders awareness month red tie challenge. in recognition of more than three million americans who suffer with debilitating bleeding disorders like hemophilia or willow brand disease, which prevent blood from clothing naturally. it's currently estimated more than 400,000 people worldwide suffer from hemophilia alone and 75% of them either lack adequate treatment or have no access to treatment. also willow brand disease occurs genetically and believed to be the most common bleeding disorder and estimated to affect 1% of the united states population. in these problems are not treated effectively, these problems can result in extended bleeding after injuries, surgery, or trauma and can be fatal for those suffering them. this march is the first bleeding disorder awareness month which further underscores a need for legislation like the 21st century cures package

which will spur greater medical research and innovation when it becomes law. mr. speaker, i urge my fellow colleagues to also take the red tie challenge so these millions of americans suffering with bleeding disorders will be helped. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in remembrance of a great lady from our district, elizabeth garrett, cornell university president. she lost her battle with cancer on march 6, 2016, at age 52. we were all deeply saddened, mr. speaker, to learn of her passing and our hearts go out to her loved ones, including her husband, two step daughters, her parents, and her sister. mr. speaker, following a distinguished career where she served as legislative director for senator david borin of oklahoma and served as a clerk for the u.s. supreme court justice marshall, she rose through the ranks to become

cornell university's first female president. mr. reed: we are very proud of her. she was a remarkable leader who led our community in the right direction. mr. speaker, i join with all of us in the 23rd congressional district to extend our condolences, thoughts, and prayers to her family and to her entire and our entire community. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 17, 2016, that the senate passed with an amendment h.r. 4721, with best wishes, i am signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the honorable the speaker house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2

of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 18, 2016 at 10:26 a.m. that the senate passed senate 483, that the senate passed senate 2143, that the senate passed senate 2512, that the senate agreed without amendment house concurrent resolution 111. that the senate agreed to house concurrent resolution 34. signed sincerely karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in

>> we are waiting for donald trump to come out for this news conference here in washington at the old post office pavillion. the speech that hillary clinton gave a couple of hours ago. it says that mrs. clinton said we need steady hands and said not a president who is neutral.

on monday, pro-israel on tuesday and who knows what on wednesday because everything is negotiable. israel -- a.p. writes that the comments were aimed at mr. trump who sparked allies of the jewish state when he was sort of a neutral guy back in february. while the u.s. is officially neutral, his statement marked with a rhetorical departure for pro-israel-u.s. candidates that. from the a.p., we would expect questions from the reporters in the room. and 5:00 we expect donald trump o speak to the apac group. our live coverage continuing here on c-span.

>> we are waiting for donald trump to speak to these reporters gathered at the old post office building in washington. let's bring you a portion of

this morning's washington journal. guest: what was unusual both the timing and the vehicle. my wife and i were living in china and writing and talking about china and heard all of the national and international news of the u.s. going into decline and wanted to see how it looked. the other was the vehicle we chose for this, for a long time was a pilot of small propelor planes. and famous aviators with a

parachute for the entire plane. we were picking out towns that had interesting stories of political and demographic challenge and how they were able to recover from that. we extended that more than 25 cities. host: a map of some of your trips as part of the article. how did you choose your cities? guest: it was a process. fort an article and looking not a big famous city that had a challenge and something has happened there and tell us about your town. we got more than 1,000 responses nd 700 of them were fullest as and why birmingham, alabama and burlington, vermont. we could spend the next several

centuries of our life going to see these things but it has been seemed to be in a moment of crisis, regional and do this travel some more during the spring and some of the midwest states that we underrepresented so far. host: what town that you have seen is in the most crisis? guest: the place that was in the news was san bernandino, california. i grew up outside in the town of redlands where the berne shooters were living. last year, we were in san bernandino, which has had profound economic and political shocks. lost big industries. the city council is paralyzed and in bankrupt. and trying to find out how even in a town this challenged, you had young people saying we are tired being the losers of

america and losers of california and start improving our city. some very interesting business people, some successful, politically conservative people said we are going to go into the city councils which has latino base saying we are going to reform the school. host: we are talking to the correspondent about his three-year round journey.

host: you have republican line and democratic line and independent line and now having regional lines it is significant when national politics is divided and divisive as it has ever been. the level of cities where things are getting done. you don't find that. better the prospects were and here's a brief illustration. we spent time in greenville, south carolina and burlington, vermont where bernie sanders had been the socialist mayor of burlington. if you didn't know they were opposite ends, you would think the same place. the city government worked with the schools, businesses and n.g.o.'s. so this idea of national politics being rolled off from local events was one sign. another sort of intangible that

we recognized is do people know what the civic story was. people know the story of america even if they disagree with people with opportunity. the civic story in columbus, ohio, which is a pretty big city, we are big enough to offer anything but small enough to get anything done was the right size. in sue falls and they found a way they could have the comforts of big city life without the hardships of chicago or l.a. and one final one, fresno, california is a very, very -- least stylish city in california because they know i love them. they are saying people look down on us but we are going to become an art center and tech center. host: a city will succeed is

that people can pick out the local patriots. guest: we talked with a newspaper editor and librarians and public school people and a mayor and one of our early questions was, tell us what makes this city go. and in a city where you could tell things are going to happen, here's somebody who runs this little foundation and here's somebody who has been changing the school and it didn't matter who the answers were but that there were answers. there were some cities we asked that question and the person would sit there for a while and that was a sign that the city had deeper problems and whether there were people felt that the welfare of this city, themselves and other people coming in. host: maybe we can try with lydia in wood stock, illinois. my city is -- with

chicago rated first in corruption and i'm sure corruption will be represented in your upcoming concerns. i want to recommend the following book "corrupt illinois," just recently came out. patronage, cronyism and criminality. i recommended it last week to the council. and woodstock like a lot of small towns, we have plenty of corruption. i would like you to invite to he opera house where pbs attended last week with his program on st. patrick's day that yes, we have a lot of

corruption and i recommended the book to him to review on his program, which is pbs channel 11 and i would like to invite you perhaps you could come to woodstock and also represent not only your article and interests, but look to our city as a template for the process that you are now considering. host: you get lots of recommendations. guest: we are going through the midwest later this summer. my wife was born in illinois. an important point here is about city governments and they have been through history and often very corrupt and we hear of all

these other things. at this moment, i think the effectiveness of city government is relatively stronger than the national government. the national government has deep, deep disagreements that you discuss so often on your channel. but usually at city governments people can't stand to be paralyzed that way and they can say there is a park that has to be redone. there is infrastructure has to be done. host: the article is titled how america is putting itself back together. in this month's issue of "the atlantic." most people belong this country is going to hell. they are wrong. and how about the second gild he had age might end. edward is in quincy, massachusetts. edward, good morning.

aller: good morning. host: go ahead with your uestion. aller: when we bring nobel laureates to meet in their city schools, inner udents, they inspire them in life and achievements. thank you. i would like to communicate and coordinate and be in touch with you, sir. guest: the ways to get in touch 's" us is on "the atlantic website. we have seen things like that. not quite as impressive as nobel

laureates. greenville is in the news and ae bob jones is there manufacturing center and right in the center of town in a historically underserved neighborhood, part of the city, called the elementary school for engineers. there are these little tiny kids who are learning engineering and very accomplished engineers from the g.e. plant that come and talk with these kids. something like what you are talking about we have seen examples of around the country. host: let's talk about the common markers that can tell you a lot about a town. where do you learn about a town? guest: if you spend two weeks in town, you know more than just a day or two. every place that u.s. has.

and we talk to the people there and we find out some hotel near the center of town. first calls would be are there reliable sources of information, the mayor's office, the newspaper office, the library. we have done some prep work and started saying, for example, who are the young people who are coming back into town, someone who has started a business here, who is somebody who has lost a job, where can we hear about those, what are the most interesting public schools. and a marker i didn't know what to look for and that is the ambitious community college. we know that america's research universities are the dominant impact the u.s. has in the world but i think community colleges are the way that this stage of our economic history where there is so much pressure on the middle. that is happening all around the

world. community colleges are the way people can get trained for the higher wage jobs that exist. and i will give a brief explanation. the golden triangle of mississippi, east mississippi aining people with difficult backgrounds with jobs in the high industrial plants and made them feel and mississippi has trouble and it is a state going in the right direction. host: if we can get the politics out of it. it's the politics that have us divided and talking to a national correspondent with his 54,000 mile trip and counting around this country learning about towns and cities. >> we are back live at the old post office building. candidate donald trump who is

developing this property into trump international hotel about to meet with reporters. live coverage here on c-span. mr. trump: great to see you. we are getting so many questions on the building itself, how it's coming and this is a great speaker system, boy. unbelievable. and just want to thank everybody for coming. we have had so many inquiries as to how we are doing at the old post office, what was formerly the old post office. the rooms are almost complete. close to 300 rooms, super luxury and going to be amazing and going to employ substantially more than i would say 500 people, at least 500 people and getting them largely from the area and they are already in training. our chefs have been employed, our service staff has been fully employed. so we have a tremendous group of

people. the hotel is going to be incredible. much of what you are sitting on, that was open space going into a basement area, that is a brand new floor and gets covered with beautiful marble from different parts of the world. much of what you are seeing here gets the final touches on it. this was one of the great buildings in washington, in the country and restored to the highest level, well beyond from when it was built and it's going to be something really special. when it's completed, it will be truly one of the great hotels of the world and that's what we are looking forward to. this was g.s.a. and one of the most heavily bid projects ever in the history of g.s.a. tremendous numbers of people wanted it. they bought it down to 10 finalists and we got it because of the strength of our financial statement and they wanted something built and something

special in terms of the concept. where you are now is part of the hotel lobby and will see that in three months. and behind me are restaurants, stores and shops and everything above the second floor is rooms, suites, luxury suites a we are building one of the biggest ballrooms in washington. the largest luxury ballroom in washington and in the washington area. it will be a very, very special job. we are proud of it. we are two years ahead of schedule. we will be opening in september. so that's much in advance of what it was supposed to be. it was supposed to be september two years from now. we are right on budget and increased the scope of the work quite a bit. we are still on budget and have gone to a higher agree of finishes and marbles and fixtures, bathroom fixtures,

windows, et cetera. we want to make this one of the great hotels of the world. i think it's coming out that way and when it's completed, you will be proud of it. it's a great thing for the country and washington. it was sitting shallow for many, many decades but it was for many years, it was a magnificent building and there was fights as to whether it would stay up and groups got together and never allowed the government to take it down. we started it about a year and-a-half ago and will have it finished way ahead of schedule. i think you will be proud of it as people who love this country, i think you will be proud of it. this is some of the staff we have, some of the construction workers and probably close to 1,000 construction workers on the the on site. the windows which are landmark,

much of the building is landmark. the walls are landmark, the struts -- it's all a very strong landmark situation. we worked with the various landmarking groups that were terrific, really professional people and love this building. the exeter i don't remember of the building -- exterior of the building is gran it and don't build them like that any more. if you have any questions, lease raise your hand. [indiscernible question] mr. trump: we met with senator sessions and some of the great people in washington and you pretty know who was there, i would imagine. we had a great meeting. [indiscernible question]

mr. trump: we can provide a list for you. [indiscernible question] mr. trump: we are very inclusive, jeff and some of the other people invited a small group and we are doing very well and looks like we are doing very well in arizona and every place else and easily make that number of the 1,237 and should make it easily based on what i'm seeing so we won't worry about fighting at a convention. [indiscernible question] mr. trump: i'm very different than hillary clinton, to put it mildly. we have a very different style. i don't think she will be one who is going to do much with our

trade agreements that are killing our country. people have no idea how important that is. the money that is being drained out of our question is enormous and that's not her thing. that's totally my thing. she will be weak on the military and weak frankly with other countries and the amount of money we subsidize them with our military, which nobody talks about. we have to make our country solvent and make our country rich if we are going to save these things and rebuild our military. it's in very bad shape. it has been december immated and get the right equipment and not the wrong equipment. we want to get the equipment they want, not the equipment they are getting because politicians have access to certain companies and we are going to rebuild our military. and that will be a big difference also. [indiscernible question]

mr. trump: her policies obviously didn't work. look at libya and look at anything you want to look at and they haven't worked and if you look back at my projections and my figures, they turn out to be very, very accurate. [indiscernible question] mr. trump: i'm going to make a speech in about two hours. i also said -- i said what i said, remember i said i want to look into it and speak to governmental people in israel and here. and i want to speak to various senators, including senator sessions, jeff is highly respected and ted cruz respected him more than any senator and thought he was going to get endorsed by jeff sessions and he didn't. jeff sessions endorsed me and ted cruz doesn't believe what happened. they worked together.

and doesn't say much about somebody when you have almost no senate endorsements but you have no senate endorsements and you work with the people all the time. we worked very, very closely with many people but jeff sessions. we worked closely with top people from israel and i'm going to be making a speech about it in a little while. [indiscernible question] mr. trump: i was asked certain questions and said i want to make a decision. and i will do it today at 5:00. >> reporter: you mentioned -- i'm a 9/11 survivor and i love the policy that you have for the military. i wanted to know if trump tower would be part of that veteran job -- mr. trump: here? we are doing some of that

already. what are you looking for, what kind of a position? come up here. smart, good. do you mind if i do a job interview right now? we need good people. what's your experience? >> i design. i do all types of decorations. mr. trump: here's what i'm going to do. here's the man. stand right over here. she is probably going to have a job. ave a good time. reporter: could you talk about what was the aim, what was the goal of the meeting this morning? mr. trump: just to start getting together with some of the people i have known over the years,

politicians and just about all cases, they were senators or congressmen. demint. we had a good meeting and can't believe how far we've come. i think a lot of people maybe wouldn't have predicted that. people who know me did predict that. it is a beginning meeting but it was a very good one with a lot of the most respected people in washington. reporter: hillary clinton and her comments to apac and elizabeth warren calling you a loser, are you prepared to deal with that sustained attack from both sides? mr. trump: very simple, i have more votes than anybody and if you take away the fact we had 17 people, i had 17 people going against. hillary essentially had one.

i had more votes than anybody, more votes have come in the primaries to me than anybody else. and you know the problem with the country right now, it's so divided and people like elizabeth warren have to get their act together because it's going to stay divided and it includes hillary and includes me. this country has to get together. we are sitting on a fat financial bubble and it is 19 trillion and we have a military that needs money. we have everything that needs money and we have health care that doesn't work. obamacare is not working. nothing wrongs. -- nothing works. we are ranked last in many cases. everybody has to get together and get it solved. if they don't get together, we aren't going to have much of a country. >> a pastor mark burns was on

stage and told the audience that bernie sanders doesn't believe in jesus. mr. trump: when did he say this? reporter: last week. do you know about that comment? mr. trump: i know the pastor and he is very respected person. reporter: what we just witnessed here was pretty remarkable, a complete stranger and you offered her a job. what inside your gut --? mr. trump: i looked at her and i have gut instinct and we are allowed to have that and i looked at her and asked a question and it was a very positive question and looks like she has a great look -- look at that with the tears. how nice. seemed like a good person to me. now maybe she won't qualify because you have to qualify, but

i think she will. shell looked to me like she is a good person. i have good instincts. i have a good instinct about you and you are a very fine reporter. she made the immediate impression. tomorrow she'll move out to hollywood. go ahead. reporter: before south carolina, you said that if you won, you could possibly run the table and that hasn't happened and there are still two people in this race -- mr. trump: give me a break. on super tuesday, i won four out of five and did well in ohio. and if i had two more days in ohio, i would have won it. reporter: have you tried to run the table for the rest of the primaries? mr. trump: we have so many people calling and in terms of delegates, the delegates you are hearing about want to come with us. i think we are going to get a

lot of delegates. some people are saying we are going to be at 14, 15. we'll see. the worst that happens, i go back to this, which isn't so bad. but i think we are doing very, very well. and i think we will qualify over that number. and if we are 30 short or 50 short, nobody else is going to be close. ted cruz won't even be close and if we are a little bit short, people have to decide are you going to go with somebody. remember. this is important. when i was putting my delegates together, i guess we started, there must have been 12 or 14 people in the race. it wasn't like i was running against one or two people. easy to put together the 1,237 delegates. but i had senators, i had a great doctor, i had carly and many, many other people running. i was doing well and i was

leading the pack. ut people were 5%, 10%, 15%. to get 50% is a little bit unfair when you have a group of people that started out at around 12. when we got to the elections, the primaries, it was around 12 or 13 people. then they started leaving. but you know, even now, we have the three. hillary had one. much different. much different. and i think i would love the reporters, i would like you to make that point. we have a lot of delegates. we are almost up to 700 which is substantially more than anybody else, but i got the delegates the hard way and running against many, many different people. all accomplished, all senators, governors, successful people. now we're down to three and we'll see what happens. reporter: why don't you think

the party has come around you yet? why do you think --? mr. trump: i'm an outsider. i understand it. there are senators, governors, congressmen, men and women and they aren't used to this and a lot of people don't like it because i haven't taken campaign contributions. they want campaign contributions and a lot of the people, the donors, some of those are friends of mine. i had donors come up to my office offer me millions of dollars and said i would love to take it, but i can't. by the way, he said i'm going to go with someone else. i said why. he said i have to. they are gamblers. when i said i don't want your money, they go someplace else. they do that. they are gamblers in a certain sense. yes, go ahead.

reporter: dr. carson and share would you accept him as a vice presidential running mate. mr. trump: dr. carson is a great guy. reporter: i talked to christian leaders and would get behind your campaign if drr carson is your running mate. mr. trump: he came over and we met and had a good relationship. once i got to know him and know me, he is a fineman, a fine person with a great family. we will be talking to ben carson about a lot of things. that's great. i'm glad that you told me that. i know that. thank you. reporter: you put together a foreign policy team. mr. trump: yes. i gave them page one. reporter: i have a couple of questions.

which one of the people you named is going to help you form your apac speech tonight? mr. trump: i used also my son-in-law where is he? his wife is about two minutes away from having a baby. apac.s here and coming to jar odd spoke to many of his friends from israel and we put ogether a lot of great people. ivanka is having a baby and he is getting ready to get going. reporter: foreign policy, general kellogg was the c.o.o. of the coalition in iraq. you have been consistent over the past five years in criticizing the iraq war.

mr. trump: he has a different opinion. but i do like different opinions. yes, go ahead. chinese mr. trump -- tourists to trump hotel -- mr. trump: chinese tourists will be involved. investment i don't need. they don't have to give me their money. but the tourists, we want tourists from china. reporter: utah doesn't look well for you. could be a blue state in 2016 which would be relatively unprecedented and you are going to get some protestors. are these two groups that don't share your values? mr. trump: i don't think so. i think we will do fine in utah. wasn't one of the states we were projected to win, but i had one speech there and it was massive. we turned away 5,000 people.

you saw what happened. and i think we'll do well there. wasn't a state. i was going out to arizona and i have a lot of friends in utah and we stopped and made a speech nd had a great response to it. i don't know. i don't know. there will be some. go ahead. reporter: two quick questions on foreign policy. one, do you think the u.s. ought to leave nato? and secondly -- mr. trump: no. reporter: do you think the u.k. when it votes on its referendum in june, it should leave the e.u.? mr. trump: yes. i don't want to make a comment about them leaving. i'm there a lot. i have a lot of investments in the u.k. and i think they may leave based on everything i'm hearing. reporter: are they better off?

mr. trump: you have to ask them. i just think they may leave. reporter: some diplomats from mexico are organizing -- different voting status and joining the stop trump movement mr. trump: the head of mexico wants to do that? we are going to bring it back. we are going to bring it back. look, we have a tremendous trade deficit with mexico, $58 billion. we have tremendous problems coming across the border. mexico could stop one day. we are going to build a wall. but if mexico wanted, they could. do you know how tough it is to become a citizen of mexico? you have a baby on the land, then you are a citizen. congratulations. try that in mexico. they laugh in your face. i would understand why they

would want people to vote against me. the people of mexico like me. if you look at the exit polls out in nevada, we do very, very well with the hispanics. go ahead. reporter: speaker paul ryan has been quick to criticize with you and has worked behind the scenes to oppose your candidacy. at what point do you lose confidence that speaker ryan should be the chairman of the convention? mr. trump: he called me last week and couldn't have been nicer. he was -- just could not have been nicer. i have tremendous -- i have millions and millions of people behind me. we want to bring confidence and sanity back to this country and we want to do a lot of great things and to be honest with you, the republicans should be

embracing -- look, there is something happening with our country that's never happened to the extent that has happened now. millions of additional people are going out and voting in primaries and in the democrat case they are down 35%. nobody cares about hillary and bernie. we are up we're up 72%. some states are up over 100% and that's because of me. now, they can play games and they can play cute. i can only take him at face value. i understand due policity. i understand a lot of things, but he called me last week. he could not have been nicer. i spoke to mitch mcconnell. he could not have been nicer. if people want to be smart, they need to embrace this movement. "time" magazine called this a movement. if they want to be smart. if they don't want to be smart, they should do what they're doing now and the republicans will go down to a massive loss and all of these people, the millions of people that are

coming out to vote for me -- because you look at south carolina. i wasn't supposed to win south carolina. and i won in a landslide. i wasn't supposed to win in nevada. i won in a landslide. i wasn't supposed to won many -- i won in the south. look at alabama. i mean, we're getting close to 50% with a lot of candidates. that was when you had even more candidates. so if they want to embrace this, it's great. let me tell you, if they don't win, you're going to have probably four and could even be five supreme court justices approved that will never allow this country to be the same. it will take 100 years but that won't work. so they better be careful, and i certainly should be careful with third party stuff. if trump gets it we're going to start a third party. that means the democrats are going to win. almost certainly. i mean, one of the -- you can't be that spiteful. you can't be that spiteful because you'll destroy the country. third party will destroy the

country. i'm going to be submitting a list in the next week or so -- i've already shown it to a lot of people. and, you know, a lot of people are worried about which judges. i want a -- we're going to have a conservative, very good group of judges. i'm going to submit a list of justices, potential justices of the united states supreme court that i will appoint from the list. i won't go beyond that list. i'm going to let people know because some people say, maybe i'll appoint a liberal judge. i'm not going to appoint a liberal judge. heritage foundation and others are working on it already. thoughts of mine -- i already named a couple. we'll probably between seven and 10 judges that i think will meet the highest standards, the highest standards and from that list we'll pick supreme court judges. and i make that pledge because

i want people to understand, that is the single biggest problem -- it will be terrible losing the election because the country's going in the wrong direction. but if the new president is a democrat and picks very liberal people, this country is in big, big trouble. ok. tom. go ahead. reporter: what do you say to all those republicans and conservatives are still convinced and still raising money they will wrestle the nomination away from you at the congress venges? mr. trump: i think you'll see what happens. maybe i won't. i have a team. we have a very good team that's in place. a professional team. i'll give you names later. it's a top-of-the-line team. if he gets the votes he gets the votes. i think we'll do well. i think we'll have a big night in arizona and we'll see. that's a lot of -- like i said we'll win florida. people say, how do you beat the face of the republican party?

don't forget, i watched your show and you did a show on rubio. i have no problems with him. but you did a show four, five months ago on rubio and you said he's the future of the republican party, he's the face. so trump won against the face of the republican party and beat him by 20 points. you know, that was a big win. and out of 67 counties, i won 66 which is unprecedented. it's never happened before. i think we're going to do well in arizona. hope to do well in wisconsin. and i hope to do well in a lot of other places but i think we can put it away. reporter: some of your rallies over the weekend, can you clearly and categorically tell your fans -- mr. trump: sure. i don't want violence. let me just tell you, i rent a stadium or whatever. we had 21,000 people near phoenix. we had 6,000 people in tucson over the weekend. and both of them on the same

day. both with very short notice. 21,000 people and we gave them short notice. couple of days. they blocked the road. these are professional agitators. they blocked the road. they used foul language. they put up signs using the f bomb and all sorts of words that were horrible. these are not good people. e people that are supporters are unbelieveably good people. the gentleman who i understand was in the air force. i haven't found too much about it yet. i hear he had a very fine record in the air force. he was given a certain finger on a hand. he was talked to horribly and he was also looking at somebody that came up with somebody dressed as a member of the cuclux klan and he happened to be -- ku klux klan and he happened to be an african-american, a supporter. it was a shame what happened. he saw a member of the ku klux

klan and you people don't write that. you know, it's interesting. it's interesting because at the beginning of the news cycle earlier in the morning they showed the ku klux klan guy walking up the stairs. an hour or two later you didn't see that anymore. you just saw the man hitting. and i said, isn't that a shame? they took it out of the cycle which you did it -- it's terrible. this is an african-american man who's a supporter, who has a great family and he has had enough. i'll be honest with you, in this country, on a larger scale, the people of this country have had enough. they've had enough where we're losing our jobs. they've had enough where we're losing all our trade. i mean, you look at these trade deals that we had. they had enough where our military can't beat isis. they've had enough with the increasing in obamacare where you have 35%, 45%, 55% increases in obamacare and your

deductible is so high you can't even use it. it really essentially isn't health insurance. people in this country are fed up. ok. mark, go ahead. reporter: biggest threat? mr. trump: you know, honestly, mark, i don't see threats. you have people going against you, that happens in life whether in politics or not. i think they're misguided. i think the people that go against me should embrace me and i'd embrace them very easily. they should embrace me because -- you reported on it. they have said in your circles, there has never been an event like that -- like what we're doing through in the history of politics. i've had people that you know very well say in the history of politics. we have millions and millions of people all over the world they're talking about it and to be honest with you, mark, they should embrace it. but they don't so that would be a threat. if they don't embrace it that's always a threat.

yeah. go ahead, sir. reporter: what you should be doing to reach out to members of your own party? mr. trump: look, again, jeff sessions and others have endorsed me. we have great congressman. i watch them on television a lot. they endorse me. i do want to say this. i don't want to drive you folks crazy. people that are watching that are against me aren't really against me because they're calling me. i've seen people on television, we have to stop donald trump, we have to stop and they're on the phone with me an hour and a half before and they want to set up a meeting. you have a lot of people out there that you think are against me and it's just politicians. they want to make a deal. they want to come in and they want to be part of it. people really do want to be part of it. reporter: what would it take to join where you are team publicly? mr. trump: they have to embrace what's happening. we have people, many democrats are coming over. this is why we're going to beat hillary clinton. if i'm running it i'm going to beat her. we have democrats coming in. i mean, we have, mark, 20% of

the democrats come in for the last primary. 20% were democrats. but we have independents coming in vast numbers. and the most amazing thing, we have many, many people. you wouldn't think there were this many people who have never voted before. they've never voted before, sarah. you know that. i see it when i'm doing the rope lines or signings or shaking of the hand. they say, mr. trump, i have never, ever voted. we are talking about 30-year-old men. 40-year-old women. my oldest is 93 years old from tennessee. she's never voted before. this incredible woman. i actually interviewed her a couple of -- and she's so excited. and she's going to be voting. 93 years old from tennessee. so i just tell you that there's something that's amazing that's happening. the other thing is we're going to get states that other republicans can never even think of like michigan. michigan's not in the road of, you know, if you look at it.

ohio is a state we have to win, right? you have to win florida. you have to win virginia. you have to win pennsylvania. they don't ever talk about michigan because they say you can't even think about it. i think we have a shot at new york. new york values. remember new york values. do you think ted cruz will win new york? i don't think so. if you win new york it's over because it's got so many del combates. so i think we have a chance at winning new york and various other states we're going to win that nobody else can win. that makes it a whole different contest. but think in terms of michigan. i won michigan really big. don't forget kasich was out in michigan. he stayed there. he slept there. he actually made the statement that if he doesn't win michigan he's going to leave the race. he was so sure of michigan and he lost michigan in a landslide to me. so i'm going to win michigan and i'm going to win other states that no other republican candidate can win. that from the electoral college standpoint throws this thing much -- it makes it a much bigger deal. ok.

one or two more. reporter: at many of your rallies you denounced countries that we send foreign aid for that can defend themselves like germany and -- mr. trump: i don't denounce the country. i want them to pay us some money. reporter: should that same standard apply to israel? mr. trump: i think israel will do that also, yeah. there are many countries that can pay and they can pay big. we're supporting south korea. i order thousands of television sets from south korea. they're a behemoth economically. every time north korea raises its head they do anything, they sneeze. we start sending the ships, the planes, anything else. we don't get proper reimbursement for that. now, i like south korea. i have property in south korea. i like it. i have a lot of friends in south korea. they can't believe they get away with it, to be honest. germany can't believe it. you know who really can't believe it? saudi arabia. we have saudi arabia, the richest country no matter how you cut it, they were making -- i tell this. until recently but now they're

making half which is still -- they were making $1 billion a day. and we subsidized the military. it's ridiculous. it's ridiculous. and they wouldn't be there except for us. this is how we're going to get our wealth back. this and other things, trade deals. ok. one more question. one more. who's got a good question? who's got a good question? who's my favorite reporter? go ahead. reporter: you are open to batter relationship with russia as president -- mr. trump: sure. i want a better relationship with everybody. yeah. i want a better relationship with russia. reporter: is it a difficult position to maintain with the media and the anti-russian overdrive? mr. trump: no, i don't think so. putin says very nice things about me. i think that's very nice. it has no effect on me other than i think it's very nice. if we can get along with russia, that's very good. if russia wants to spend millions of dollars a day dropping bombs on isis, i'm ok with that. you know, i'm ok with that. some people don't like it.

they say, no, it's our job. let russia if they want do do that i'm all for it. no, i want to get along with all countries. and we will. we will have much better -- you look at what china is doing in the south china sea. that's so very disrespectful to obama and to our country. you take a look what they're doing in the south. they're building a massive military complex. and yet they're draining us for money. they're taking money out of our country where we're building -- we are rebuilding china. so, no, i want to get along with all countries. and you know, the interesting thing we'll do much better with all countries and yet we'll get along with them better too. ok. go ahead. real fast. go ahead. reporter: [inaudible] there are people on television, lawmakers, donors who are publicly saying they don't support you but behind the scenes they -- mr. trump: they say they're not supporting trump want to support me.

[indiscernible] mr. trump: a lot of people will join the team or as they say the trump train. but a lot of them -- i just don't want to do it now. but you'll see over the next short period of time. i mean, many of the people that i watch on television that are supporting somebody else are really supporting me or they want to and they will as soon as we say yes. but you're going to see a lot of people. ok. reporter: the supreme court nominees and the list, is there any sort of litmus test, past rulings on abortion? mr. trump: we'll look at that. we'll look at pro-life. we'll look at that. we'll look at intellect. very important. like we want very, very smart people. we want conservatives on the supreme court but we're going to be making up a list from seven to 10 people. i will be distributing that list in the very near future. ok. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. thank you very much. let's take a tour. nobody asked about the hotel. does anybody want to see -- first of all, this room -- does anybody want to see what we're

building now? the largest luxury ballroom in washington by far, we could take a look. then if anybody wants to go up at the rooms and suites, they're giving some tours. they are magnificent. the building was gutted down to the basics. it was gutted down to the steel except for this area because his area is all a landmark and we have magnificent suites, rooms, meeting rooms and we're building a ballroom. if you follow me i'll give you a tour of the ballroom. come on, mark. come on. follow me. [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]

>> how long have you been out? >> i've been out since -- well, that depends. i've been on medical leave for five years. i have been, i guess, injured ever since 2000 -- >> where were you deployed? >> iraq and afghanistan

veteran. >> were you expecting a possible job offer? >> no. the only thing is i wanted to put a great story on the veterans administration website talking how trump towers is open for veterans who would love to apply who need a job and i got a job. >> what's your name? >> do you work with the veterans affairs department? who do you write for? do you write for somebody? >> no, i'm a freelance artist. i submit stories and submit like on posts and blogs and everything else. the whole purpose of me being here today was to, hey, trump towers is open for veterans who are looking for a job. this area has more wounded warriors and more retirees than most place. >> do you support him politically? do you support him for president? >> anyone that did what he did for me today gets my support. >> what's your name? >> alicia watkins. my rank was staff sergeant.

i'm retired. a-l-i-c-i-a w-a-t-k-i-n-s. >> you said you were a 9/11 survivor? >> i was in the pentagon, yes. >> where are you from? >> i'm fwreasheds. i live in the suburbs. i am 38 years old, march 14 was my birthday. that's it. >> so when he brought you up there did you know he was going to offer you a job? >> no. i didn't think he would answer my question. i am a freelance. you guys are the big newscasters and i was just asking, will this be open to veterans and will you have the same -- i wanted to makes sure what he said in his plan he was willing to do and he did that and he proved that to everyone and i'm just -- i'm ecstatic because i needed a job. i haven't worked in a long time because i'm back and forth from walter reed. >> why did you get emotional? what was it about the moment? >> if you understood my story,

i was a homeless veteran. until oprah broke my story in -- , i struggled to >> struggled to find work and to live? >> so if it wasn't for my fiance i believe i still would be homeless. so it's nice to find someone that will listen to you and i got emotional. first of all, i'm an emotional person and i got emotional i use i needed a job and exceptions f make for -- for employment because

of my disabilities and because of what i've been through and so i've kind of utilized design to be something that i've been taking my mind away from it. but the reason why i got emotional because if you knew how long i've been fighting to be employed, you would understand. >> yeah. thank you for sharing your story. but you are in no way connected to the trump campaign? >> no. >> don't know anybody in this building? >> no. this is the first time i saw him. i was not planned. i came here not even in the hopes i would be like way in the back. i didn't think my question was going to get answered because i'm a -- just a blogger. i'm not a credible news and he took my question and the only question i wanted to ask was, ll the hotel be open for

veterans -- qualified veterans. >> and so you're going to follow-up? >> absolutely. absolutely. absolutely. and i'm -- honestly, i'm excited. >> thank you, alicia, for sharing your story. appreciate it. >> ma'am, what branch of the military were you in? >> the air force. >> how were you a -- where were you on 9/11? >> pentagon. >> doing what job? >> network engineer. >> and where were you working -- what ring of the pentagon were you working? >> the fifth floor. >> the fifth floor. which ring? >> the e ring. there's a lot of questions. you want to know where i -- good lord. >> and then you served in the air force in iraq and afghanistan in what unit? >> which unit win? >> you said you were an iraq and afghanistan veteran. in the air force? >> yes. >> which unit of the air force were you in? which squadron, which --

>> the air force doesn't have like -- >> where were you based, what you -- >> well, i'm a network engineer. first time i went i think i deployed with the special operations command central and the second time i was at the combined forces afghanistan -- couldn't remember the name but t was in kabul, afghanistan. y'all are making me -- >> why did you want to come today? >> well, i heard about the event because i, like everyone lse, am wanting -- i wanted to hear the political candidate. every political candidate's view on veterans is very important to me. >> so you've been to other -- >> no. i've not been to any other political event. i came here with a question about specifically veterans and

the trump tower and i wanted to see if mr. trump, whose plan that i do like and i do support, would put veterans to work with his own hotel. you understand? he's a little different because he runs a business to employ veterans immediately and i wanted to know that. >> what do you do for a living now? >> well, right now i had to take medical leave out of college because of my injuries. i'm dealing with severe ptsd and traumatic brain injury and i'm also dealing with some diseases that are 9/11 related. so i'm back and forth between walter reed and here. >> which town do you live in? are you in maryland or -- >> i don't want to say. montgomery county. going to kill me. >> you said your husband or

fiance? >> actually, he is my husband. i married him because -- don't put thout there. this is off the record. we got married because i thought i -- >> so you hear a conversation going on with a woman who says she was looking for a job and apparently has been offered some sort of job with the trump international hotel, hotel being built by the donald trump group there on the site of the old post office pavilion here in washington. coming up in just about an hour and a half, we're going to have live coverage from the aipac conference this afternoon. start with speech -- a speech from governor john kasich and follow that up with a speech from donald trump and then senator ted cruz. again, live coverage of that for you at 5:00 eastern on c-span2. the house comes back in about a half-hour. until then, a look at today -- a look at israel's influence in the u.s. last week, the american educational trust and the institute for research: middle

east policy hosted a day-long conference on israel at the national press club here in washington. janet: i'm janet mcmahon, the washington report on middle east affairs. for those of you who are still print oriented, our next issue will have the complete transcript of today's conference and videos of the panels and key note speakers are on youtube and on the nference website www.israelisinfluence.org. no apostrow fee. our panel begins with college and university campuses. so i'd like to open by introducing a pals american organizer based here in washington, d.c. t rambings k graduated with bamplet s. in finance in washington, d.c. where he was a

founding member of students against israeli apartheid or ass ambings. he's the public affairs coordinator at georgetown iversity contemporary arab studies. under the arab institute, he's leading an initiative to mine historical and influential documents regarding the palestinian movement in the united states. it is aimed at studying the u.s.-based unit and offering researchers a resource. he hopes developing conducting research or resistance economies. please join me in welcoming tark. [applause] >> so before i begin my talk i

want to thank the research for hosting and thank you for the invitation and all you have been doing. to the staff that made today possible. and i'd especially like to thank the workers of the national press club that have been working so tirelessly to make this venue such a nice venue that we're sitting in today. [applause] tareq: as you walk through the main atery up of george mason university [no audio] censorship on the panel. ok. sloat me start over. hopefully that doesn't dig into my time. as we walk through the main

atrium of george mason university student center you will see two rows of banners splitting the cafeteria in two. the banners you see are things you expect to see at university, patriot pride, advocating for the different university services, things like that. but there's one banner in particular that always seems to catch the tension of passersby. because of our banner's presence, one might assume historically george mason university has embraced a politically radical climate. but you only need to go back three years to see that it's quite the contrary, actually. and what i'd like to talk about today going back in the three years and observing the shift in discourse in palestine and also the emergence of student groups committed to radical politics. g.m.u. students first formed as an ad hoc committee during the pillar of cloud. while an a.j.p. chapter existed

on our campus, they were anti- bds and thought it was too radical. i call it beltway syndrome. it could be attributed to a number of other factors, obviously. george mason university is one f the fifth most mill tar -- mearltized campuses in the u.s. to discuss the effects of beltway syndrome, will take an entirely different talk. so we set out to establish an organization that would address the issue of palestine without making appeals to authority. come january of 2013, we had completed the requirements to become a registered student organization. and all that was left was for our application to assume. we faced tremendous discrimination on g.m.u.'s administration. it was met with immediate response from the administration. now, before we ever granted our club status, we were actually threatened with termination.

now, the administration's actics to silence critiques of zionism can be described in two faces. deny of rights and the second of phase had a series of policy reforms that were aimed -- that aimed to sir come scribe the agency and the reach on campus. this exercised during the second phase would reveal a set of double standards toward palestine groups that we see on different campuses. excuse me. for this reason, i believe it's important to examine these policies and challenge these reforms because they aim to centralize power within the administration and by doing that, administrators are able to prohibit movement building of any kind, whether it's palestine related or in terms of -- for other groups. now, ultimately, this would

pave -- sorry. so basically this would end up backfiring on the university. as they start to restrict all these policies that were aimed to restrict this group, it created a political consciousness among the student body. and before i end my talk, i'm going to talk about to this a little bit and discuss some of the larger challenges of social movements on campuses today. you know, while i believe that the double standard for palestine exists and i think it's very real, that threat, i don't want to exceptionalize our cause. i think the issue of palestine is represented of a change that threatens to change the status quo and encompasses values that could destroy the foundations upon which repressive institutions are built. one of the first steps we took to change the political climate at g.m.u. was initiating an educational program. we believe that education was necessary to engage and politicize the student body and without it they would not participate in our political actions. now, despite not being a

student organization, with access to space, we hosted weekly meetings in a small study room in the library. as students began to feel empowered through the readings, word spread and eventually we could no longer cram into these small study roofments now, because the university had frozen our application, we were forced to meet outside. while this was an inconvenience, it actually turned out to be a subversive act that would fuel the university's overall discomfort by our existence. our outdoor meetings were a public display of a growing movement to reclaim space. even if we didn't realize it at the time and, again this is not exclusive to palestine. we felt the subversive act in ferguson, in baltimore in response to the national guard's consider few. we watched this unfold in the -- uprisings and were students of mizzou. this is a changing tide that's

occurring, not only on campuses but globally. now, through this educational program, the students became empowered to challenge their professors and peers who either supported zionism or claimed neutrality. we use we refused to -- were accused of being dog matic and divisive. now, institutions, whether they be academic, nonprofit, they often try to hide behind this idea of objectivity we actually entrenches a culture of mediocrity and actually supports oppression. nd seeks to protect the status quo. the colonized subject for -- for the colonized subject, subjectivity is always used against him but we need not colonized to have subjecktift to serve as a tool of oppression towards us. we always question ourselves when we attempt to be objective in these circumstances. keeping thised in mind allows us to be aware where we stand in terms of power.

through this analysis we were able to cult cultivate a culture on campus that challenged the residual effects of object tift one of them being victim -- on jecktift one of them being victim blaming. in the case of g.m.u., anti-normalize served to isolate zionist groups on campus. during my time there, the only time zionist groups emerged was in the response to palestinian organizing and because we didn't engage them in a foray, they rejected the parity of israel i.c.e. and palestinians being on equal sides and kind of the myth of zionism and the origin of the project. now, i attribute much of the success in the first year at least to our dismantling of this false parity. but education for the sake of education is not enough. if you're not putting people and galvanizing people into

action, you are pontificating and it's fun to talk theory. we wanted to see material change and ways we can support our allies, where people can feel empowered and have agency. so the first thing we started -- our campaign which was on the campus' cafeteria. as we collected hundreds of signatures, the university continued to crack down on us but we were unwavering on our efforts. one of the tactics the administration deployed was to restrict the campus -- those on campus that were considered free speech zone. the only area on campus that was considered a free speech zone was in the middle of campus which if you can imagine trying to organize in the winter how difficult that would be in d.c. and again, this is talking about this idea of reclaiming space. i want us to think about that throughout this talk, you know. who is here, who do you listen to, think of this idea of

reclaiming space. and then, you know, eventually, despite the administration's disapproval, we weren't able to deshelf subra completely but we were able to offer an alternative that affected the sales on campus. it's something worth mentioning. it was a way for students to support it like -- now, certain students took notice of the administration's repressive policies or reforms aimed at and students that were notted in in the question of palestine joined saia. at this point realized that saia needed to have a more intersectional understanding and the effects of zionism and its role in global capitalism and repression. as we know there are way too many intersections so i will

talk about how to talk about zionism to proximity to power as we begin to call into question the neo liberalization of interest. and we will talk about the walkout on graduation. sherry would receive an honorary doctors and be delivering our commencement speech. ow, -- yeah, i know. i feel like rubio up here with the washington. -- with the water. while g. mumplet's president, angel cabrera, talked about as a morally responsible investor, it was more about her $3 million of a professorship named after her. although she is committed to values, morally responsible ventures, an investigation in the operations of her company

reveals she invests in firms directly involved in the illegal occupation and colonization of palestine. her family's wealth was built through the oppression of palestinians. now, as we outlined in an open letter to the g.m.u. community, the honoring and speech given by her at graduation made it clear that university was not concerned with the experience of palestinian students and families that had been affected by this woman's or this family's presence. now, the -- but more important than worrying about this question of how do palestinians feel, because really, does anybody really care about that? the administration has stated that the professor would -- let me slow down, everyone. more important than this, as we brought up the idea of donor aid and influence on curriculum and this started to galvanize people on campus who really didn't care about the

palestine. the prefessor would be dedicated to remp as represented by her vision. it's difficult to think that a profiteer would gain a direct line of communication to do these values to the student body. and without going into that story, we were able to do the walkout on graduation and the university actually facilitated it and i walked -- so i walked out of the commencement speech with 30 friends and 100 or more so in the crowd and then we walked back in and received our dipalomas so it wasn't that we were punished which was nice. again, that wasn't the university being nice or afraid what would do if that didn't happen. it is something having read politics on campus and not making appeals to authority and constantly trying to appease the administration in negotiations. now, the question of donor aid would ignite a discussion surrounding faculty governance, centralization of power and the role of the administration on campus. it was no longer a critique of

zionism. rather, it was a lens in which the campus community could begin to understand power dynamics on campus. for this reason i now understand, after witnessing student movement on campuses throughout the u.s., that the administration's backlash against palestine advocacy is not unique. rather, it was a typical response of power to those that seek to disrupt the status quo. from here i'd like to shift our conversation and take the opportunity, such a large and engaged audience to offer suggestions but more importantly raise a few questions that hopefully we can all work through as we leave this conference. i'll continue to use g.m.u. as a case study because that's where my experience was grounded. in terms of organizing on campus, one of the ways we responded to oppression, we faced it was -- we faced was through mirroring the tactics of trade unions. we made sure to make every single instance of repression or violation against our rights the smallest sleight the biggest deal. this might seen we're picking benign little issues but the

sum of all these issues are much greater than their individual -- than if you were to add them individually. and i think there's something to be said about that. now, in thinking through how students organize in our -- and our interactions with the faculty after the walkout, i began to understand the relationship that should exist and had flourished in the past between students and faculty. at g.m.u., much like other universities, the faculty in regard to self-governance have as much power as students. they don't have enough power to enact change to the policies. i want to talk about the american studies endorsed the academic boycott of israel so this was right before the facility facilitated our walkout where they implicitly acknowledged that arrias's presence may be offensive to the g.m.u. university. it embodies the discomfort that institutions and power feels as they watch marginalized communities reclaim space and

advocate for self-determination. after the resolution passed, g.m.u.'s president cabrera made the following offensive statement. universities exist to build bridges of understanding, not blow them up. his line -- saying this -- insinuates being in solidarity with palestinians is on par of terrorism. this language was a blatant arrias to the support -- now, i'd like to read a small excerpt from a statement we released in response to cabrera's opposition to the boycott. cabrera's most recent action is a deliberate attempt to stifle any form of faculty organizing on the g.m.u. campus. today, we're fighting for the faceless palestinian academic but tomorrow we may be demanding better working conditions and pay for you and your colleagues. for this reason, president cabrera opposed a.s.a.'s

resolution because the former will lead to the latter and the latter is the administrator's worst fear. it would take a year for this to come through. who prominent figures on our campus who had close to saia, and we can't -- the university is not transparent in any way. we're not able to prove it but it's clear. when you see somebody, you now, speaking -- first israeli apartheid week and seeing the supporter endorse that. because it's a movement and support us and not isolate us like the university tried to do in the beginning, we can start to see that -- you can see the change that it has on campus. now, we can observe all it took was one small group of students. we started as eight people. just causing constant noise all the time no matter what. whatever we could we were reclaiming as much space. even the voice and the noise, that is a part of reclaiming

space. that is putting all your assets. talking -- and today's -- today at mason, it's a very different campus. saia no longer holdess these meetings. use rican -- they let us the robson room. for instance, the student senate before saia -- the emergence of saia, they passed a resolution condemning university staff for going on strike because it was an influence to students. that shows you how conservative this university was. that even the senate was passing these types of resolutions. just last semester, they abolished columbus day and replace it with indigenous people's day and i think that's a really big deal. [applause] and these are just a few of the very small instances of how

we're able to change campus climate through palestinian work and it wasn't always about palestinian and i think it's important to -- palestine and i think that's important to note that. i'd like to envision -- i'd like us to envision all of us as a part of a larger effort to reclaim space from marginalized communities and for those who have been pushed to the fringe. if we come at these challenges that we're facing with this attitude it will help us fully understand the attempts to thwart growing grassroots activism. whether that in the form of an anti-bds bill, or the yasmil, attack on they challenge power. we need to fight tooth and nail . i'm not saying this because i'm palestinian. because what happens next will reflect how those in power will address social movements at large. by challenging these negotiations of power we illuminate largers questions of

containment, governance. we begin to ask who defines boundaries. i won't go into issues of civility like we saw with steven's case. as a social movement we should constantly be asking ourselves -- access s of ack and incluesivity. i am upset that i'm breaking up an all-female panel. at the same time i'm palestinian, right? i'm a palestinian man. there is a dehumanization of palestinian man. there is a woman categorizing them and collapsing them with children, right? these are things we're seeing. we need to ask, what type of voices are allowed to speak and start addressing these type of questions and the organizers are doing great. we need to think about these things. we should always be constantly pushing the envelope. [applause] and i'm almost done. i know i have 15 seconds so -- you know, if our work isn't grounded in anti-imperialist,

anti-racist, queer, liberation, ethics we must ask what is the point we're doing. we're working hard to create a new world. let's break free from the paradigms we're put in. we can do it outside of what we've been told the ways we're supposed to do we need to ask who are the people we're making appeals to. is it important to have everyone in the room? these are just questions i'm trying to build for the movement. you know, in closing, i just implore us to always challenge who is in the room who are we giving voices to, how do those voices address power and i think if we do this we will undoubtedly dismantle the institutions that are built upon our repression and that seek to protect the status quo so thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, tareq, and please don't feel guilty.

male. ere no joining us is maria with expertise in constitutional and international human rights. she works to defend the constitutional rights of palestinian human rights advocates in the united states. the cases she's worked on include davis v. cox, defending the olympia food members for boycotting israeli goods. solita v. kennedy which she represented steven whose offer at the ten ured position at the university of irvine. and c.c.r.v.d.o.d., seeking government records under the freedom of information act regarding israel's 2010 attack on the flotilla to gaza. about which we'll hear more today. maria works closely with palestine legal to support

students and others whose speech is being suppressed for their palestine advocacy around the country. she also works on the right to heal initiative with iraqi civil society and iraq veterans seeking accountability for the lasting health effects of the iraq war. her past work at c.r.r. includes cases against united states officials such as iraa v. ashcroft, al-awlaki v. obama and al-awlaki v. panetta, concerning the killing of anwr al-awlaki and matar v. sticker and against corporations such shell. v. royal dutch and caterpillar sold the bulldozer to kill rachel. prior to joining the center for constitutional rights, maria advocated on behalf of affordable housing and civil

rights in the san francisco bay area. a graduate of the university of michigan law school, she was named a finalist for the 2010 public justice trial lawyer of the year. we're very pleased to have maria lahood join us today to discuss legal challenges today vow indicates for palestinian -- for advocates for palestinian rights. [applause] maria: thank you, janet. thank you to the washington report for putting on this terrific conference today and thank you for being here. i want to thank tareq for his work. people ask where is the hope for change in this country and i present you tareq and all the students who are advocating for palestinian rights. that's where the hope for change is for me. [applause] as the movement for palestinian rights has grown in the u.s., so too have concerted efforts to silence any criticism of israel, particularly on u.s. campuses. students are being stymied, investigated and disciplined.

faculty are being punished and activists have been sued and arrested. i want to focus on a couple of those cases. the first one of being that of professor steven solita. he's an esteemed palestinian professor and prolific school a including on zionism. he was a ten ured professor at virginia tech university and was offered a tenured position at the university of illinois, champaign, in the native american studies program. he accepted the offer, he resigned from his ten ured position and was set to start in the summer of 2015. his wife quit her job. they put money down on a condo. they pulled their son out of [no audio] hello. thank you. sorry. his classes were list and his textbooks were ordered. that summer, the summer of 2014, the professor, like many,

watched with anger and horror as israel devastated gaza. he tweeted about it. just two weeks before he was set to start at u of i, he got an emailed from the chancellor essentially telling him not to bother show up. she said his appointment would not be recommended for approval by the board of trustees, referring to a provision in his contract that his appointment would be subject to approval by the board. the professor and his family were left without jobs, income, health insurance and a home. how did this happen? a self-described zionist had been monitored the professor's tweets. the website blog published some of them and the jewish federation and the anti-defamation league got involved and wealthy donors through the university threatened to withhold their donations. before deciding to fire the professor, the chancellor went out of her way to meet with

those wealthy donors. yes, she didn't bother to consult the prefessor, the hiring committee that vetted him or the department he was joining. the chancellor and the trustees later admitted their decision was based on his speech, claiming they viewed his speech as uncivil and a couple of the trustees also called it anti-semitic. as we know, the subjective label of incivility has been used to demonize groups and suppress dissent and labeling palestine as anti-semitic was an attempt to silent it. board approval, by the way, happens in september after faculty started teaching and always been the line item vote where everyone is approved at once, not with this pros if hors. led by the chair of the board, christopher kennedy, the board rejected his appointment. they awarded kennedy -- an award for leading the board in

firing him. the league sued the university. seeking the prefessor's reinstatement. they had violated his first amendment right by retaliating against him for his speech. they violated hyzdu process rights by failing to give him notice and they violated his employment contract. the university argued primarily he didn't have a contract because of this clause. the court, however, refused to dismiss the case, citing there was clearly a contract. if there weren't, the judge said, the entire american academic miring process would cease to exist. no one would quit their jobs and move to a new place on a meaningless offer. and the professor's tweet was political speech in a public forum and the university's actions were based on its content. which could not be separated from the tone. which is what the university argued it's not. it's not his view. it's the way he said them.

in 140-character tweet. the chancellor resigned a few hours after the decision was issued. the next day -- [applause] maria: the next day it came out she and other university officials were using personal emails for university business they didn't turn over in response to freedom of information act requests. in fact, an email from the chancellor revealed they were using their private email because of the threat of litigation and she was even deleting her emails. the provost resigned a few weeks later. became l, the professor the chair of the university of beirut and moved on. he settled his case for $875,000 against the university. [applause] it was i think a victory not only for academic freedom but for the palestinian rights movement. one of the most inspiring aspects of his case was the incredible grassroots support for him. thousands signed petitions, 5,000 professors boycotted the

university and 16 u of i departments voted no confidence in the administration. his termination was widely condemned by academic organizations and the american university of professors crensured the university of illinois. he spoke on over 50 campuses finding larger platform for his critical analysis of zionism than he previously had. the member for palestinian rights cannot be silenced. [applause] but efforts to do so unfortunately are only increasing. another case i want to talk about is the owe liveria food co-on which is a local food co-on home to rachel and her family and ever green state college. it is a nonprofit organization. it has a long history of doing social work and promoting political self-determination. it's adopted various boy cots over the years but in 2010 it

-- the board voted by consensus to boycott israeli goods. more than a year later, five of the 22,000 members sued board members, those who passed the boycott and those sitting on the board when the suit was brought. the case seeks toned the boycott as well as personal damages against the 16 individuals. six months before the lawsuit was filed, the israeli council general based in san francisco traveled to olympia, washington, to meet with an attorney representing the plaintiffs and some olympia activists. it is a nonprofit to support israel around the world. it's one of many groups trying to suppress speech critical of the israeli government in the u.s. and it maintains dass yeas on people, including some of us here. not long after that meetingsing, the five members,

-- meetings, the five members threatened to sue the 16 board members unless they rescinded the boycott immediately and threatened they would be held personally liable and the process would be considerably more complicated, burdensome and expensive. the boycott again was passed in 2010. this was -- this was six years ago. the board responded by asking them to specify how they had violated the co-on's governing documents and -- co-ops governing documents and and they refused to do so and instead filed a lawsuit. right after the lawsuit was filed, listed as an agenda item for the executive meeting under the category of project status. it posted online that stan with us filed -- stand with us filed a lawsuit against the olympia food co-op.

spearheaded by israeli deputy foreign minister. when danny was asked if the foreign affairs was involved in the lawsuit he said, quote, it's important to make every use of every means possible, mainly legal means. c.c.r. and our co-counsel in seattle represent the board members who were sued and several years ago we filed an anti-slap motion. it's a strategic lawsuit against public participation and about the -- >> we're going to break away from this. take you live to the floor of the house. live coverage on c-span. orded ve or the the yeas and nays are ordered on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? the clerk: h.r. 1670, a bill to

direct the architect of the capitol to place in the u.s. capitol a chair honoring american prisoners of war missing in action. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, mrs. miller and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from michigan. >> i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the measure before the house today directs the architect of the capitol to obtain a chair featuring the logo of the national league of p.o.w./m.i.a. and prominently display it in the u.s. capitol. as members of congress, we represent but one of the things that ties us together are the many brave men and women we represent who stood on the battle lines in defense of our

freedom liberty and way of life. and this legislation introduced by our colleague, representative stephen lynch of massachusetts, honors american prisoners of war and america's missing in action an the chair will represent enormous sacrifice who were taken as p.o.w.'s or listed as m.i.a.'s. the importance of honoring their great sacrifice can never be overstated. our nation has the responsibility to them and their families who shared in the sacrifice and we must never forget. our heroes our heroes need to be honored, especially in the u.s. capitol, which is the ideals they sacrificed to defend. this chair will honor sam johnson, one of our colleagues here in the house. sam is one of the most stalwart protectors of those who have served and who himself endured nearly seven years as a p.o.w., including 42 months in solitary

onfinement in the infamous hanoi hilton. sam returned to his loved ones and we're so honor to serve with him today here in this house in addition to sam johnson, mr. speaker, when i think about the meaning behind this memorial, i think about an individual who lives in my district. his first name is donald, but we call him digger. digger odell was shot down in october of 1967 and he, like sam, was a prisoner in the hanoi hilton. in digger's case for 5 1/2 years. thankfully, digger made it home, as sam did, and after all of those years in the north vietnamese camp, he's now in his 80's and serve as our committee council and he chairs a fundraising effort for the special olympics. digger is remarkable man. he's one of many who selflessly served our nation facing

enormous adversity. i might mention my husband, a fighter pilot, a proud member of chapter 154 of the v.b.a. in mccomb county, which one of the largest chapters in our nation. again, mr. speaker, these heroes, who bravely served our nation, deserve to be honored, especially in the u.s. capitol, and certainly with this chair -- pow-mia logo on it. we will never forget. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. ms. lynch: thank you. i want to thank the gentlelady from michigan for her kind words in support of this bill and i want to thank mr. brady, the ranking member on the house administration committee for his support as well. mr. speaker, i rise in support of my bill, h.r. 1670, the

national pow-mia remembrance act. before i begin, i want to thank house administration for nair great support and staff support as well. mr. speaker, this bill actually comes from the recognition that we all share that in our country oftentimes the families suffer .'s mia's alone. it's through the efforts of groups like rolling thunder and other veterans' groups, they are brought to the forefront the fact we should carry more immediately the memory of the sacrifice of those families. in my own life, i came to know a man named james fitzgerald who was a member of operating engineers local 4 in boston. i worked on a job with him, and i remember at noontime when everyone would go off to lunch, he would go up into his pickup

truck and eat his sandwich by himself. and day after day, in his lap he would have a flag, a triconnor flag that this country gave him inlerans of his son who went -- in remembrance of his son who went down as a result of enemy fire in vietnam in the early 1960's. it was not until the late 1980's, early 1990's that his son was actually recovered and returned to his family and buried in massachusetts. years, the , many fitzgerald family carried that burden by themselves. they carried them alone. i had a chance to travel with the joint pow-mia account and command to vietnam, to korea and to the south pacific, the philippines. we have 83,000, 83,000 men and women from this country that died in the second world war in

korea and in vietnam who are still there. about 1,000 remain in vietnam. about 5,000 remain in korea. north korea. up around the reservoir. and then the balance, the great majority of those m.i.a. are buried at sea as a result of the great naval battles in world war ii and they are buried in place and their resting places are sacred ground. but we have an opportunity here to place within the capitol a remembrance, a shrine in effect to their sacrifice and in remembrance of their service to this country. h.r. 1670 would honor them by authorizing the placement of a pow-mia chair of honor on the grounds of the united states capitol. that share will forever stand unoccupied as a solemn reminder

of the over 83,000 brave americans from as far back as world war ii who are still waiting to be brought home. chairs of honor carrying the pow-mia insignia have already been placed in cities and towns around the country. it is only fitting that the capitol, the seat of the u.s. congress, should do so as well. mr. speaker, when our fellow americans go to war, we make them a promise never to leave them behind. that vow is sacred. when we pass this chair every day we will be reminded of our commitment to our pow-mia's and their families that we have not forgotten them. we will never forget them and we will not rest until they all come home. i want to take a moment to thank joe who first approached me about undertaking this initiative a couple years ago. he is a past president of rolling thunder, massachusetts chapter, chapter 1, and is now a rolling thunder, incorporated national member. i want to thank all the members from all the chapters of

rolling thunder across the country that have kept this idea alive. joe is a passionate advocate on behalf of our veterans and of pow-mia's. he's worked with my office from the very beginning on this effort. i also want to thank gus dante, also with rolling thunder, national, who has worked steadfastly at joe's side to see this through. i want to thank the rolling thunder chapter 1. their efforts were integral to bringing us here today. after today, h.r. 1670 will move to the senate for its consideration. i want to recognize and thank my massachusetts colleagues, senator elizabeth warren, for introducing her senate companion bill, and for making this a truly bicameral effort. i look forward to continuing to work with him to get this passed the finish line and have the national pow-mia remembrance act signed into law. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts

reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from michigan. mds miller: mr. speaker, i -- mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. walker: i rise in support of h.r. 1670, the national pow-mia remembrance act of 2015. which would direct the architect of the capitol to place a commemorate chair in the united states capitol to honor american prisoners of war and missing in action. this bill is a way to acknowledge and remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to our country. one of the groups supporting this bill is the rolling thunder, as was just mentioned. the mission of the rolling thunder is to educate the public of the prisoners of war who were left behind. i'm happy to state this bill is not a cost to the american taxpayers. in coordination of rolling thunder, i introduced house resolution 590 which calls for a select committee on pow-mia

affairs. i can tell you these situations are sometimes not always resolved but the closure that it provides and benefits to the families are immeasurable. i'm proud to once again stand with my colleagues today in honoring our brave men and women. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentlelady from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. lynch lunch -- the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. lynch: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady from miller. mrs. miller: i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: i want to thank you for your willingness to put such a wonderful piece of legislation forward, something that truly should be unanimous in its bipartisan support. you know, i, mr. speaker, also rise in strong support of h.r. 670, the national prisoner of

war-missing in action remembrance act. this bipartisan bill, as those that spoke before me, is a chair that will be placed in the capitol as a reminder of the great sacrifice that our brave men and women in uniform have made to keep our country safe and promote our values around the glofpblete these commemorative chairs, which are purchased with privately raised funds, remain perptually remained unoccupied as a solemn reminder of the 91,000 brave service members still waiting to be brought home. mr. speaker, it's truly an honor for me to be able to serve with some in this institution who were p.o.w.'s and made it home. they need to be commended for their service, like congressman sam johnson from texas, who spent way too many months, 48, i believe, to be exact, as a

guest at the hasway hilton. he was able to -- hasway hilton. hilton. le to -- hanoi he was able to make it home. mr. speaker, ensuring our veterans are probably cared for is one of my top priorities as a member of this great institution. while the veterans administration continues to require significant reforms, having a commemorative chair in the capitol will remind all members, all members of this great institution of the commitments we have made to those who have fought so hard and ensure that we hold the v.a. accountable for their actions too. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 670 so that families of pow-mia service members know also that the united states of america will never forget the sacrifices their loved ones made who served this country with such valor and honor.

and ie. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentlelady from michigan reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts still reserve? mr. lynch: just want to inquire if you have more speakers. mrs. miller: we have no further speakers. we're prepared to close. mr. lynch: ok. let me just say in support of .r. 1670, i do want to share their acknowledgment of sam johnson's service and sacrifice on behalf of this country. in fairness, i have to say when we went to the hanoi hilton, they did have a reconstructed version of what senator john mccain went through in hanoi. it's a sanitized version what he suffered there, but i also want to recognize his service. he is truly an american hero as well. and i thank my republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle for your support. i'm glad we can work on this together. i think we owe it to all our

m.i.a.'s and p.o.w.'s and their families to get this done. so i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1670, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back. the gentlelady from michigan is recognized. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, as i conclude, i just want to reiterate again that these brave men and women who served as p.o.w.'s or those missing in actions are our nation's patriots and heroes and they certainly deserve to be honored. i'm proud to be part of this effort to install this fitting memorial recognizing those who sacrificed so we can all be free. i certainly want to thank our colleague from massachusetts, stephen lynch, who introduced this bill, came to me and asked we would work together on this and i'm delighted to do so because there is absolutely nothing more bipartisan and important, i think, in how we remember our veterans and those that are currently serving as well, but this is a very, very important piece of legislation. i certainly, mr. speaker, encourage all of my colleagues to join us in passing this measure today, and i yib. . -- and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass the bill s. 192 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 192, an act to re-authorize the older americans act of 1965 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from florida, and the gentlewoman from oregon will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to include extraneous material on s. 192. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . >> i rise in strong support the older american act re-authorization act of 2016 and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> for decades the older americans act has been a vital

resource for the nation's seniors. it established and has sustained a number of services including nutrition services, family caregafere support and elder abuse prevention. mr. curbelo: this has allowed seniors to stay active and helped them to live independent lives in their homes and communities and enabled older americans to remain out of institutional care. this updates and improves the law to continue to serve a senior population that has changed significantly since the older americans act was first enacted more than 50 years ago. one of the hall marks of the original law and something this maintains and strengthens is the flexibility to serve the specific needs of seniors in their communities. this bipartisan legislation maintains that strong commitment to state and local control and

makes a number of commonsense reforms to the law. for example, the bill includes specific measures to better protect seniors from abuse and neglect. among those measures is a provision to strengthen a program designed to investigate and resolve complaints from residents of nursing home facilities and other adult care homes. it also clarifies responsibilities related to the development and implementation of programs related to their health and economic welfare of older individuals. the bill also continues support for senior medicare patrol, a program that helps train senior volunteers to prevent and identify health care fraud and abuse. congress should continue to fund this important initiative because it's good for seniors and it helps save taxpayer dollars by protecting the integrity of health care programs. dirlly, this legislation improves alignment between existing programs designed to provide employment and community

service opportunities to older americans. it simply -- simplifies services and defined authorization levels. these are just a few of the important changes and updates this bill makes in addition to the many vital services it continues to help seniors age with dignity and independence. i urge my colleagues to support the re-authorization of the older americans act. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from oregon. ms. bonamici: i want to thank chairman klein and ranking member scott for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. re-authorizing the older americans act has been one of my top priorities. over the years i sponsored legislation to strengthen essential programs that help keep seniors healthy and

independent. seniors know how important the older americans act programs are. so i have met with them to discuss ideas for improving the law and i have advocated for funding for older americans programs and services and all along my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been committed to re-authorizing this important law. on behalf of seniors across the country, thank you to my colleagues for their support for this legislation before the house, a three-year re-authorization of the older americans act. i want to thank the advocacy community and service delivery groups for their ongoing support for a strong bipartisan re-authorization. backing from a wide range of groups that are dedicated to the well-being of americans help make post legislation we are considering today. every day in our country, about 10,000 people turn 65 and as the population of older adults continues to grow, we have a responsibility as policy makers

to re-evaluate and bolster the programs that keep seniors healthy and active in their communities. the legislation we are considering will help them lead meaningful lives, by transportation, health and nutrition services to seniors in every state. this legislation includes modest increases in authorization levels, building on the amounts appropriated in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus appropriations act. investments currently currently funded programs are overdue and will help meet the growing demand placed on these programs and services. increasing investments like programs like meals on wheels will allow more adults to stay in their homes where they can remain connected to their communities and avoid costlier long-term care and for many adults the hot meal is the only one they will get that day.

the volunteers who deliver the meal may provide their only social interaction which is important for all seniors but especially for those in isolated or rural areas. significantly this legislation provides tools to curb both physical -- financial and physical elder abuse. by approving proven strategies. according to the elder justice coalition, there are more than six million victims of elder abuse every year, roughly one out of 10 people over age 60. according to the national center on elder abuse, they lose an estimated $2.9 billion a year and they lose their life savings. i'm pleased that this legislation continues to address the problem of elder abuse and takes steps to make sure older adults are not robbed of their resources or denied the dignity

they deserve. my colleague from florida has expressed support for the senior medicare patrol, a program that trains senior volunteers to prevent and identify health care fraud and abuse. i want to reiterate support for this program and note that the education and work force committee supports full funding for this important initiative which should not come at the expense of funding other programs. the senior medicare patrol saves taxpayer dollars by protecting the integrity. the return on investment is undeniable and this is the case for senior medicare patrol as well. americans are living more longer and productive lives and our policies need to keep pace. older adults should not have to struggle to afford transportation, nutritious food and high quality supportive services. congress will need to continue to invest in and modernize services for services so elder

dults from diverse, racial and ethnic programs have programs that keep them healthy and engaged. this legislation is an important step forward and i'm glad congress is coming today with bipartisan support to recognize the valuable role that older americans act programs play across the country. these programs work and re-authorizing mean that america's seniors will continue to receive resources and support they need. the re-authorization we are considering today is an important way to recognize that in the united states of america our seniors, our parents and grandparents across the country deserve to live healthy fulfilling lives and live them with dignity. i thank the ranking member and the chairman for their leadership and the hardworking staff for their dedication to improving the lives of older americans. thank you and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from florida is

recognized. mr. curbelo: i yield four minutes to the distinguished chairman who has worked tirelessly on this re-authorization, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. kline: i thank the gentleman for yielding the time. i rise in strong support of this legislation re-authorizing the older americans act. since it was first enacted, this act has been a vital resource for america's seniors and their care deliff givers through a wide range of services to help older americans enjoy their independence in their homes and in their communities. however, much has changed in the last 50 years. today, americans are living longer and the senior population is significantly larger and more independent than it once was. what hasn't changed is the responsibility we have to take care of our seniors. that's why in addition to continuing the vital support established by the older americans act, this re-authorization makes a number of important improvements to

ensure the law is still providing the kind of help american seniors need. first, it provides better protections for our most vulnerable seniors. it promotes best practices for responding to abuse, neglect and exploitations, and strengthens protections for long-term care facilities and improves coordination between state and local aging offices. and it will streamline and improve programs under the law are administered. taxpayer dollars will ensure program coordination and efficiency. the legislation makes changes to nutrition services programs to account for geographic changes. the bill better alliance the better work force development system. congress passed the work force

innovation and opportunity act to provide more efficient streamlined work force training system to put americans back to work. this legislation builds on that law by providing seniors access to a less confusing and more seamless work force development system. these are just some of the things this bill does to better serve individuals the law is intended to support. we made a commitment to help those who want to deserve and enjoy independence and contribute to their communities as they grow older. this bill will ensure that we are not only honoring this commitment but honoring it well. in closing, i want to thank my their continued leadership on this issue and in helping move this important piece of legislation forward. we are grateful for their efforts. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from oregon is

recognized. ms. bonamici: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from virginia, the ranking member, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. scott: i rise in support of the legislation today which provides for a three-year re-authorization of older americans act. mr. speaker, the committee on education and the work force has been committed to seeing this legislation through and i want to thank the ranking member on our side, the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. hin hosea and thank them and chairman kline and representative curbelo and all of the members of our committee making this bill a reality. i have the privilege of working on legislation on legislation that affects americans throughout their lives from childhood to advanced age. older americans act was first passed 50 years ago as part of president johnson's war on poverty to help americans stay connected to their communities

by receiving social and nutritional services. our commitment is more important. one in 10 americans over the age of 65 lives in poverty and older americans are working longer. some because they want to, but many because they have to so they can secure their financial futures in the face of retirement insecurity. the spectrum of services provided through the older americans act in conjunction with medicare, medicaid and social security ensure that our nation's older americans are not left behind in their golden years. the pew research center reports that the elderly population is expected to double by 2050 and without meaningful investments in our seniors too many americans who work hard all their lives will be left struggling in their later years. but unfortunately since 2009, older americans act funding has dropped. failing to address this is bad for seniors and bad for our country.

providing our seniors with health services nutrition and supportive services makes them less likely to suffer illness or injury and less likely to incur expensive hospital visits. these investments bring dignity to the lives of our seniors and ultimately will result in significant savings to taxpayers. our investments in these programs kept up with inflation and growing population, the funding levels would have been actually higher but thankfully we can finally say we're moving in the right direction. vice president humphrey once stated that the moral test of government is how the government treats those who in the dawn of life our children, those who are in the twilight of life, our elderly, and those who are in the shadows of life and it's my hope that by protecting the enhancing the federal statutes to support our older americans we will be

passing this test. again, i want to thank my colleagues for their support of the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentlelady from oregon reserves. the gentleman from florida. the gentleman from florida reserves. he gentlelady from oregon. ms. bonamici: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from the great state of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. defazio: i might be the only member of congress who has worked under the older americans act. another young man and i, obviously many years ago, started the first senior companion program in regent 6, the pacific northwest. and these employment programs are fabulous. you know, there's two things that we need to keep into account for seniors. the vulnerability of many, economic vulnerability, the

nutritional vulnerability, their medical vulnerabilities and the needs that have to be served there. and those that retire over the age of 60 who still have a tremendous amount to contribute to this country. and through the older americans act and the senior community employment programs, we actually are utilizing their talents. the particular program i ran employed 60 low-income seniors to go out and work in the community with other even more vulnerable seniors in their homes to try and keep them in their homes, keep them independent. better quality of life for them and a heck of a savings for the taxpayer. because nobody can afford nursing homes in america except the richest among us. and inevitably when seniors have to go into nursing homes they're going to end up on medicaid at some point. very expensive. so effect keep them at home, they're happier, and we save

money. and then on the other vulnerabilities, nutritional vulnerability. the largest bulk, the single largest category under the older americans act goes to the nutrition programs. that's the meals on wheels. i'd urge anybody who's not particularly familiar with these programs to go to one or the other and see how important this is to so many millions of older americans every year. that's often the only time they'll see other people in the day is if they're at the meal site or if they're home and someone shose up with meals on wheels -- show up with meals on wheels and i've seen seniors basically cry, getting a little bit of attention at home and getting a meal that will get them through the day. so this is excellent. i thank the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: it is wonderful we're re-authorizing this. but the funding levels are inadequate. if you look at it over time,

the senior population has grown dramatically. the need has grown dramatically and yet the funding, if you look back 10 years or so in adjusted dollars is actually less today. it's great we're re-authorizing it but we do need to look for more funding. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from oregon reserves. the gentleman from florida. the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from oregon. ms. bonamici: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. peters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. peters: thank you. in san diego and across the country, they need this for health care and other essential services. these programs help ensure our seniors age successfully and with dignity. serving seniors who's here today from san diego to support re-authorization of the older americans act will be able to continue to provide meals and other services at the gary and mary west center. meals on wheels of greater san

diego will keep delivering meals to seniors in their homes. in the county of san diego, they'll have more resources and information to combat elder abuse. together, we'll continue holding senior scam seminars in san diego to equip members of our senior community with the tools they need to avoid being scammed. for many seniors, an important part of aging with dignity is having the support of a caregiver in their family, improving the national family caregiver support program will continue to give these caregivers a network of information and services to care for their loved ones. as an active member of the house seniors task force, i'm committed to protecting the viability of medicare and social security which seniors have earned over a hard life -- a lifetime of hard work by preventing medicare fraud and abuse. this legislation will save on long-term costs and help keep medicare viable. i urge my colleagues to stand up for our seniors and support passage of the bipartisan older americans re-authorization act. i thank leadership on both

sides of the aisle for working on this and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentlelady from oregon reserves. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from oregon. ms. bonamici: it appears we have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady prepared to close? ms. bonamici: i'm prepared to close. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. bonamici: in the united states, the population of older adults is projected to increase from approximately 57 million people aged 60 and older in 2010 to about 76 million older adults by our next census in 2020. despite the rapid rise in the population of seniors and the growing strain placed on important services for older individuals, congress allowed the older americans act to expire in 2011. fortunately, today the house has the opportunity to pass the re-authorization of the older americans act, and it is not a moment too soon. this legislation increases the

federal investment in older americans act programs, which serve millions of seniors in towns, in cities and rural areas across the united states. re-authorizing these programs means that older adults will continue to receive nutritious meals, legal assistance, preventive health care and other essential services that make it possible for them to live independently and age with dignity. and i agree with my colleague from oregon, mr. defazio. if you haven't been to one of these programs, you should definitely go spend some time with the people receiving these services. it's very meaningful. it changes their lives. i'd also like to thank my friend and colleague from florida, mr. curbelo, as well as ranking member scott and chairman kline for their commitment to america's seniors. i ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan measure to re-authorize the older americans act. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. curbelo: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. curbelo: the important services by the older americans act help us achieve a goal we can all get behind -- supporting the country's seniors and helping them maintain the active, productive lives they desire. and as i see it, that's not just a goal. it's our responsibility. the seniors we're talking about are veterans, parents, grandparents, teachers, caregivers, laborers, job creators. they're individuals who worked hard all their lives who help this country and expand and in a lot of ways supported many of us throughout our own lives. it's now on us to support them in their senior years. this re-authorization will do just that, which has support from members on both sides of the aisle and from nearly 50 groups, including aarp, the national association of area agencies on aging, meals on

wheels america and the national association of states united for aging and disabilities. it will enable older americans to remain independent, to continue contributing to their communities and to remain in their homes with their families and among their friends. many seniors are fortunate enough to have loved ones who are already helping them stay active and who are already looking out for their best interests. unfortunately, there are many seniors who are not so fortunate. this bipartisan bill will help those individuals live out their years with dignity, whether in their homes or in long-term care facilities. i believe that's an effort we can all support. i want to thank chairman kline, ranking member scott and my friend and colleague of oregon, ms. bonamici. this is a wonderful model for bipartisan work, for working together to help vulnerable people in our country. thank you, mr. speaker.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the question is now will the house suspend the rules senate 190, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. royce: i move the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4314, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4314, a bill to require a plan to combat international travel by terrorists and foreign fighters, accelerate the transfer of certain border security systems to foreign partner governments, establish minimum international border security standards, authorize suspension of foreign assistance to countries not making significant efforts to comply with such minimum standards, and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from california, mr. bera, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: well, mr. speaker, i would like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to evise and extend their remarks

and to include extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. royce: i also ask unanimous consent to place into the record letters exchanged with the chairman of the other committees of jurisdiction on this bill and that would be judiciary and homeland security. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. royce: mr. speaker, let me begin by thanking mr. zeldin of new york. i thank him for his work on h.r. 4314. this is the counterterrorism screening and assistance act. as well as the other members of the committee on homeland security's bipartisan task force on combating terrorist and foreign fighter travel. under the leadership of chairman mccaul and with the significant contributions of mr. katko of new york and the foreign affairs committee, we

unanimously approved this measure in january and, mr. speaker, the reason we did goes back to a little bit of history. al qaeda planned the 9/11 attacks from afghanistan because they had the capacity to do so. to plan an attack there on the united states. now, isis controls significant territory. they control that territory in yria, in iraq, in libya, and as long as terrorist groups maintain these safe havens abroad where they can work on new forms of munitions, bombing, go through trial runs on how they carry out an attack, we are under, as a consequence, we are under a threat here on our homeland, much like the situation prior to 9/11. the perpetrators of the horrific attack that we all saw

on that coverage out of paris that killed 130, those killed were european nationals. nd those who did those murders, they had trained, they had trained to fight in syria. they had traveled by train, they returned to europe through greece and through turkey and despite the fact that many of those local attackers were known by authorities, they were still able to move across borders. . they moved without detection and they moved with fraudulent passports from syria. and given the high number of foreign fighters returning home

from that isis stronghold in syria and from the isis training camps in iraq and frankly from libya we have now heard, there is a recognized and urgent need for improved border security and information sharing between governments. this bill is a way to get there. because this threat is not just limited, by the way, to we in the united states and to europe. earlier this month, terrorists that had received training nside libya were killed by forces of tune neice yeah during an attempted attack inside tune neice yeah. so these attacks now demonstrate hasousy it has become for foreign terrorists and terrorists to move across open borders and this legislation makes several important changes

as how to how border security is implemented. it improves tools and coordination between allied states. and it does it in the following way. this legislation requires the departments of state and homeland security to produce an annual scorecard assessing the border security efforts of countries around the world. this is going to identify the weaknesses and areas for improvement abroad. it will also mandate a streamlining of our own efforts to assist partners overseas with their border security programs and the administration will then submit a plan to congress for prioritizing u.s. assistance on this. this bill requires the establishment of minimum standards for border security on the part of our allied states. and countries that fail to meet these minimum standards can have u.s. foreign assistance

suspended, cut off. employing the same incentive already in place that we use today in order to force compliance against human trafficking overseas, against those states that commit human rights violations. many of the members are familiar with how we leverage those states to force them to pass legislation and change their way in which they address these issues. we are going to deploy the same leverage here. so this bill reflects the recommendations made by our colleagues on the homeland security's bipartisan task force on combatting terrorists and foreign fighter travel, which we have worked together on the foreign affairs committee has worked with the committee on that. and i again thank mr. zeldin for his leadership on his work to make our nation safer against this terrorist threat and i

reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i rise in support of this measure and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> let me thank the chairman for his work and mr. zeldin on bring this bill forward. violence in recent months has shown the violent extremism isn't isolated to particular countries or regions. we see the danger posed by terrorists and foreign fighters when they can cross borders. mr. bera: the united states along with our allies and partners need to do whatever we can to stop those dangerous individuals as they cross from country to country. this bill would help us move in this direction. this would ramp up coordination among government agencies. i would call the on the sfration for specific plan laying out how we are going to meet this

challenge. around the world it would help governments by speeding the transfer of software and technology to track people entering a country, to collect data and figure out what sort of risk they might present and prioritize the sharing of specific border security systems with foreign partners and it would put a particular focus on countries where this danger is particularly acute. it would establish minimum standards for international border security and makes it clear that governments that don't take this problem seriously are putting their american foreign assistance at risk. this legislation provides commonsense steps to ensure our own security and that of our allies and partners. i again want to thank mr. zeldin for his hard work. i'm pleased to support this bill and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from california,

mr. royce, is recognized. mr. royce: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin and is a member of the committee on foreign affairs and author of this bill. we spreesht the expertise he has brought in crafting this legislation as it relates to border security. because of his experience both his distinguished career in the u.s. army, but also as an intelligence officer, a former prosecutor in the army and a military manage is trait. so -- magistrate. so mr. zeldin from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. zeldin: i thank the chairman and his great staff for all of their incredible assistance in making sure that this legislation not only came to the house floor for a vote but came to the house floor swiftly and fortunately with a very strong

bipartisan support. so i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially to chairman royce and chairman mccaul, the homeland security committee. i rise in support of my bill the counterterrorism screening and assistance act of 2016. this legislation is about protecting america's security at home and abroad. foreign fighter movement is a very serious challenge that has resulted in the well recognized need for improved border security around the world and better information sharing between governments. the horrific terror attack in paris that killed over 100 people showed us how easy it is for terrorists to move undetected across borders. this attack was carried out by european nationals who traveled to train and fight in syria and returned to europe through greece and turkey. local authorities knew some of the attackers, they were so able

to move across borders without detection and in some cases using fraudulent passports. it's essential that the united states works with the international community to stop the movement of terrorists abroad. additionally this legislation helps us counter the spread of infectious diseases like zika. the outbreak has spread at rapid rates across south america, central america and the caribbean and the number of zika cases among travelers visiting or returning to the united states, we must take action now. s evidenced with the ebola outbreak in 2013, if the proper effort is not implemented proactively, the consequences can be truly devastating. the counterterrorism screening assistance act recently passed the house foreign affairs committee unanimously with bipartisan support. this bill would establish international border security

standards to close security gaps that currently exist that allow terrorists and foreign fighters to travel internationally. these standards would be developed in coordination with all relevant u.s. government and agencies in consultation with the secretary of defense, the attorney general, director of national intelligence and director of the f.b.i. our resources would be utilized in the most efficient way possible with high-risk and medium-risk countries afment reporting system would be accomplished to monitor and combat foreign fighter and terrorism travel and suspend foreign assistance to countries not making efforts to comply. it would put in place a monitoring system to screen for infectious diseases which would help quarantine viruses and authorizing the secretary of homeland security to provide the necessary equipment and supplies

to stop the spread of diseases such as zika as it continues to spread across the global community. i thank congressman katko. the bipartisan measure is long overdue not only to protect our homeland from terrorism and protecting the u.s. the spread of diseases. we need to address a serious national security threat and ote today to pass this bill to keep america safe. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. bera. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two

minutes. mr. poe: i strongly support this commonsense legislation. mr. speaker, thousands of europeans who have traveled to fight along side isis and other terrorist groups throughout the world pose a serious threat to our national security. one of the problems is making sure that those terrorists who go fight in iraq and syria and other places don't go back to their home countries in europe undetected, because once a person gets in europe, it's easier for europeans to travel to the united states than it is in some other countries. terrorists often travel to a number of countries before they get home and some of these countries have very good border security and others, agh, not so good. the united states has the technology to help our friends and allies track down these bad guys, but our bureaucracy, of course, has gotten in the way of national security.

this bill expedites the process cutting through the red tape giving our partners the tools they need to track terrorist travel throughout the world and in their countries. terrorist travel is not a problem we can solve by ourselves. we must stop terrorists before they show up in america and work with our partners overseas. i strongly support this legislation and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from california plrks royce reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. bera. mr. bera: seeing i have no other speakers, i urge my colleagues to support this measure and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. royce, is recognized. mr. royce: i yield myself the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i thank major lee zeldin, congressman from new york for authoring this bill. and let me also again express my

appreciation for the cooperation of ranking member engel and to commend his work and of our colleague from california, dr. bera, on this legislation. the 9/11 commission states in their report to us on recommendations, said to the congress, the u.s. government cannot meet its own obligations to the american people to prevent the entry of terrorists without a major effort to collaborate with other governments. we should do more to exchange terrorist information with trusted allies. and raise u.s. and global border security standards for travel and for border crossing over the medium and long-term through extensive international cooperation. this bill does that and adds another component and that's as

relates to the collateral benefit which will come through ying to prevent infection -- infectious diseases bourn by ese exotic vectors, like the mosquitoes that bring the zika virus or like ebola. this bill increases collaboration with our allies through improved information sharing, tighten border security methods overseas and the department of state and department of homeland security are required to accelerate the delivery of certain border security systems and prioritizing delivery to countries deemed to be at high or medium risk for foreign fighter or terrorist travel. and it also establishes minimum border security standards. the department of state and department of homeland security are required to submit an annual

report to us and congress, detailing how countries are meeting the minimum border security standards established there and the annual report will not only assess partner country efforts over the previous 12 months but it's also going to identify those areas that are most necessary for improvement. and countries that don't meet border security standards could ve their nonhumanitarian assistance suspended or cut off. suspension of assistance is meant to ensure that countries take the necessary steps to improve their border security. and i want to thank mr. zeldin and other members of the homeland security ski task force on combatting foreign fighter and terrorism travel and this bill deserves our unanimous support. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. those in favor say aye. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. royce: i ask the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s.

2393, the foreclosure relief and extension for service members act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 2393, an acted to extend temporarily the extended period of protection for members of uniformed services relating to mortgages, mortgage foreclosure, and eviction, and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman, and the gentlewoman from florida, ms. brown, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and add ir remarks extraneous materials on s. 2393. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. coffman: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of s. 2393, the foreclosure relief and extension for service members .ct of 2015

this bill was introduced by our colleague, senator whitehouse of rhode island and passed the senate in december. this bill would extend through december 31, 2017, mortgage-related protections for service members who are called to active duty under the service members civil relief act, specifically these protections would prohibit a bank or mortgage company from selling, foreclosing or seizing a property owned by a service member without a court order for one year after a service member returns from active duty. this protection allows service members the opportunity to avoid foreclosure or seizure during this one-year period following their service, giving them the opportunity to hopefully get back on track with mortgage payments. in 2008, the report produced by

the commission on the national guard and reserves found that the threat of foreclosure is a stresser that should not be placed on members of the armed forces upon their return to civilian life. today, as a shrinking active duty force leaves more and more operational responsibilities to the guard and reserves, these home foreclosure protections are more important than ever. this year it is expected that more than 10,000 members of the army national guard and army reserves will cycle through to europe. nearly double the number of last year. many thousands more will serve in other theaters of operation all over the globe. i believe it is essential that we ensure members of the military returning home have plenty of time to regain their

financial footing, particularly where they have selfishly given up their civilian jobs to deploy with a guard or reserve unit. this protection has been extended several times by congress and has been considered a noncontroversial extension of existing authorities. without our action on this bill, the protection would slip to only a 90-day of foreclosure protection and could impact service members as early as the end of this month. i would also note that the mortgage industry is supportive of this extension and i thank them for their advocacy and for their continued support of veterans and active and reserve service members. mr. speaker, i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge the work of mr. grayson of florida and mr. fincher of tennessee for their work on this issue.

as they also had similar bills to s. 2393 pending before this body. once again, i urge all members to support s. 2393, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of senate bill 2393, the foreclosure relief and extension for service members act of 2015. this bill provides a two-year extension of current protections so veterans transitioning out of the military don't lose their homes that they owned before beginning their military experience if they're experiencing financial hardships for up to a year after they leave the service. senate bill 2393 allows courts to pause proceedings to foreclosure on or seize a home

for one year following services, allowing time for transition of soldiers to adjust their financial situation as well as all other aspects of their lives to civilian life. we owe our veterans the benefit of the doubt when they have ssed payments while facing the service. there is broad support of this provision and i urge my colleagues to support it today. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman reserve? mr. coffman: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. brown: mr. speaker, millions of people are losing their homes and have lost their homes through foreclosure. i worked with the banking

community, with federal h.u.d. and others. other veterans are still losing their homes and now many churches in my district are closing and losing their properties through foreclosure. i am pleased we have this bipartisan legislation, but this bill is a temporary fix. we need to work together as a congress to find a permanent fix so that our veterans, other individuals and churches are protected from foreclosure. again, i want to thank my colleague, mr. coffman from denver, for bringing this legislation forward. and i urge the passing of senate bill 2393, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, once again, i encourage all members to support s. 2393, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 2393.

hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 4721. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4721, an acted to amend title 49, united states code, to extend authorizations for the airport

improvement program, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund, nd for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: -- the clerk: senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, and the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 4721. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: this bill, as amended by the senate, extends the authorization of the federal aviation administration programs and the revenue collection authorities for the airport and airway trust fund through july 15, 2016. the current f.a.a. re-authorization expires at the end of this month. without this bill, the

authority to collect aviation taxes will lapse depriving the trust fund of more than $40 million per day. that's funding for air traffic control, airport development and other aviation programs that can never be recovered. additionally, airports will be unable to receive grant money that's already been awarded to them, putting dozens of construction projects at risk. h.r. 4721 will avoid these unnecessary consequences while congress works to re-authorize a long-term aviation bill. i ask my colleagues to support h.r. 4721 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: well, here we are a week later and now we're doing another extension which of course i support. this one will go to july 15 which is truly a drop dead date. congress will be out for the longest summer break since probably the 1950's, starting just after july 15. so we must get the long-term bill done by then.

there's substantial agreement between the bill that came out of committee in the house and the senate bill with the exception of the tomestone rule on lithium batteries. a -- tombstone rule on lithium batteries, privatization of the air traffic organization. so i would hope we can move ahead in and preconference the many titles and begin working on those -- the differences on the flight attendants' rest time and i'll continue to push on lithium batteries and i would hope that this is the last extension. with that i'd yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this piece of legislation, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 4721. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendment is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass senate 1180. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1180, an act to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to direct the administrator of the federal emergency management agency to modernize the integrated public alert and warning system of the united states, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. costello, and the gentleman from indiana, mr. carson, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. costello: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous material on s. 1180. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. costello: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. costello: the transportation and infrastructure committee has a long tradition of tackling fema and emergency management issues in a bipartisan manner. i would like to acknowledge chairman barletta and ranking member carson of the emergency management subcommittee for leading efforts in the house to improve our nation's emergency alert system. public alerts save lives and their efforts, along with this bill, will save even more. this committee was the first to introduce legislation in 2008 and every congress since to modernize the integrated public alert and warning system, also known as ipaws. because we recognize the critical need to provide timely and effective disaster warnings to our citizens and our communities, modernizing the alert and warning systems will help save lives. at the committee's request, the g.a.o. issued a report in 2009 dealing key problems with

fema's development of ipaws. g.a.o.'s findings supported the need for legislation to ensure consultation and coordination with key stakeholders, strategic planning and the timely rollout of the new system. g.a.o. issued a subsequent report in 2013 identifying a continued need for guidance and testing of the system. we have heard from many stake holders like people with disability the elderly and broadcasters that fema wasn't giving them a seat at the table as fema modernized the system. involving these stake holders, who are the primary users and owners of the infrastructure, is key. as without them, alerts couldn't go out. i'm happy to stand here and support the culmination of that ork in s. 1180, the integrated public alert and warning system

modernization act of 2015. ipaws modernization act provides public safety officials with an effective way to alert and warn the public about serious emergencies. this legislation sets a clear framework to ensure money is not wasted, while making certain key stake holders -- sure certain key stake holders are part of the modernization of the system. the bill will also ensure that the ongoing development and modernization is done effectively and efficiently. as technologies change, the legislation will ensure that the system adapts and continues to work toward the most effective alert and warning system possible. this system impacts everyone in america, mr. speaker. hether it's a mirk, tornado, flood or wild -- a hurricane, tornado, flood, or wild fire,

unless the public can be alerted, lives will be at risk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> thank you, i'd like to thank my colleague, mr. costello, and my good friend ranking member defazio, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in support of this bill, it directs the administrator of fema to codify the integrated public alert and warning system, commonly known as ipaws. with ipaws, they're able to warn the public about impending hazards through different communications such as radio and television broadcasts or cell phones. they can be geographically target sod only those in harm's

way will receive the messages. all this leads to saving lives, mr. and reducing property damage. mr. carson: during the months of may and june, tornadoes are most likely to strike the great hoosier state. getting citizen to safety or even alerting them to shelt for the place before a tornado strike -- stornede strikes could ultimately be the difference between life and death. success in that effort, mr. speaker, depends largely on access to timely and precise information. during 2011, a violent storm caused the sudden collapse of a concert stage at our indiana state fair. this tragic incident killed seven and severely injured dozens more. it could have been much worse. timely alerts enable fair officials to clear the midway, minutes before the storm struck, potentially saving hundreds of lives. our committee has primary jurisdiction over ipaws and we

have worked hard, mr. speaker, on this issue for several congresses. while this bill is similar to another bill, h.r. 1472, that the transportation committee reported last year, i'm very disappointed that regular order was not followed in senate bill 1180678 it should have been referred to the committee of jurisdiction so that the house of representatives can do the job we were elected to do. consider the details and implications of all the different provisions and how they impact our alert and warning system. now despite the lack of regular order, mr. speaker, i still support this measure greatly. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. costello: i wish to yield four minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. donovan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. donovan: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, my friend from pennsylvania, for yielding time. as the chairman of the committee

on homeland security subcommittee on emergency preparedness response and communication, i rise today in support of s. 1180, the integrated public alert and warning system modernization act of 2015. this morning legislation was introduced by the chairman of the state homeland security and governmental affairs committee, senator ron johnson. ipaws provides public safety officials with a mechanism to alert and warn the public about emergencies using multiple communication platforms, including the emergency alert system, wireless emergency alerts, and noaa weather radio. the bill we are considering today authorizes ipaws program and provides it with needed direction to help ensure that we can make available as much information to the public as possible to get them out of harm's way in the event of a terror attack, natural disaster or other threat to public

safety. we know that these alerts can help cey lives. ipaws was used after the boston marathon bombings to direct residents to sheltering during the manhunt. -- shelter during the manhunt. in my deprict, ipaws was used to warn people during hurricane sandy. elsewhere, it's been vital to located missing children through the amber alert system. we also know that the system is not without its challenges. while i understand that in a recent test of the emergency alert system a component of ipaws worked for stations in my home state of new york, there were challenges in other states. the test was canceled in several states due to weather conditions. however, a number of those stateses were not informed of the cancellation, leaving their broadcasters to wonder why the test didn't occur. we must ensure better communication between ipaws and relevant stake holders. that is why the ipaws subcommittee of the national advisory council established in

this bill is so important. this advisory committee will provide stake hold wers a mechanism to provide input into the program. ensuring stake holders' engagement and feedback will serve to enhance the effectiveness of ipaws. the committee on homeland security has a long history of oversight of the ipaws program, having held a number of hearings and briefings. legislation similar to the bill we're considering today was abride the committee on homeland security just last year. like the legislation passed out of the committee on homeland security this legislation is supported by the national association of broadcasters, the national alliance of state broadcasters association, and ctia, the wireless association. we thank these organizations for their continued engagement on this bill. the enactment of legislation to authorize ipaws has been long in

coming. i urge all members to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation so we can send it to the president's desk to be signed into law. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. carson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carson: at this time i'd like to yield to a good friend of mine, mr. peter defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: i thank my friend and colleague and the ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding some time on this important bill. yes, indeed, we have spent a number of years overseeing, holding hearings, working to push for a more modern public alert warning system. so this legislation is somewhat overdue. in fact, we passed similar legislation last year in the house. i do support the legislation.

i will point out it's a bit irregular because we passed it a year ago and suddenly we're passing a version which just happens to have come from a senator who happens to be one of the most vulnerable republicans up for re-election so he can get a notch on his belt, but, hey, that's the way things work around here, sometimes we get things good done for sometimes the wrong reasons. it should have been done a year ago. senate should have taken up our version. that said, this will mod everyonize the system tremendously. you know, this is -- we're well past the days of alerts yet really the technology has not moved as far as it could for the 21st century. in particular, i was just over in japan with the congressional delegation observing what they've done post their dramatic earthquake event and tsunamis and the experience is instructive.

they first estimated the wave heights and were able to get the message out to some extent on public broadcast and with sirens before further shocks brought down the grid and silenced, for the most part, the sirens. unfortunately, the first estimates were off. when the waves reached the near shore monitoring device, they found they were considerably higher and a much more vigorous evacuation should have been conducted. unfortunately at that point, they had no way to get the word out to the people who had gone to high ground but not high enough, or those who had sheltered in place when they believed the height of the tsunami would be less. so they lost many lives, they feel unnecessarily, because of a lack of redundancy in the system. this will move us toward a redundant system. they have moved now to a

cellular based system so individuals can be alerted. i was just at a tsunami event in the town of florence, oregon, where -- it's called the blue line, they have evacuation routes and people say, when do i stop running or driving? so they're painting lines on those critical routes at one point where you are save from the highest predicted tsunami. and they did essentially drill while we were there but you couldn't even hear the siren. these are world war ii air raid sirens, some work, some don't. so we need a much more robust and redundant system because we know that the pacific northwest and northern california, it's only when, not if, we will have a dramatic earthquake, potentially with a magnitude up to nine with a subsequent unami and we need in place

both deep ocean detection to give more warning time, wave detection to give more warning time and a robust system to inform the people where to go and how to go, how far they need to go in these events. so this is overdue legislation and i do urge its adoption. with that, i thank the gentleman and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. costello: i wish to yield four minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bilirakis: i rise in support of senator bill 1180, the integrated public alert warning system, or ipaws, modernization act. i ask that this letter be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bilirakis: modernizing our alert and warning capabilities is essential to keep us safe. we must effectively communicate

information to the public in national emergencies and our warning efforts must evolve with the growing and emerging threat of today. during my time as chairman of the homeland security subcommittee on emergency preparedness response and communications, this was a top priority of mine. i worked -- worked to update our alert and warning systems and utilize innovation, innovative new technologies. since the 112th congress i have introduced and advocated for the passage and enactment of this important piece of legislation. very similar to my bill, house bill 1738. during my work on the integrated public alert warning system modernization act, i heard from many stake holders and experts who high temperatured the need to ensure alert systems are available to the largest number of people. including individuals with disabilities and those living in rural areas.

in 2006, fema implemented the integrated public alert and warning system which improved public safety by quickly disseminating emergency messages and life-saving information to the public. these systems have not been modernized in decades which is why i have consistently reintroduced this bill with congressional -- this bill. with congressional oversight we can ensure our constituents have alert systems that work reliably, effectively, and efficiently. senator bill 1180 provides for updating our communications infrastructure and allow for instantaneous message delivery over cell phones, text messages, the internet and broadcasting. additionally, this bill improve ours capabilities and communications network by creating a national public warning working group to bring state and local officials

together. this will ensure systems developers, regulators, users and relay participants to meet on a regular basis. this informed legislation allows us to hold our responsibility and the protection of the people we serve. i want to to thank senator johnson for his work and javo kacy on this issue. i also want to thank my colleagues, representative susan brooks and chairman of the homeland security committee, chairman mccaul and chairman donovan for their support and co--- in co-sponsoring my bill h.r. 1738. this is a great step in the right direction and we must continue this progress of modernizing our capabilities with the passage of this bill. i urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation, thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania s recognized.

the gentleman from indiana. mr. carson: may i ask my colleague, mr. costello, if he has speakers at this time? mr. costello: i do not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana. mr. carson: may i ask how much time is remaining on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana has 13 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. carson: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. costello: mr. speaker, i, too, yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1180. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill.

the clerk: h.r. 1831, an act to establish the commission on evidence-based policymaking, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m. today.

that's live at 6:30 eastern on c-span3. >> tonight on "the communicators," a look at the f.c.c.'s lifeline subsidy program and the plan to include broadband internet access to bridge the digital divide between higher and lower income americans. the f.c.c. is expected to take up the proposal at the end of march. we'll talk with the policy director at the benton foundation and a visiting scholar at a.e.i. center for communications and technology

policy. the joined by brendan, national journal communication reporter. >> low income consumers need access to broadband now. it is unclear to me congress would be able to pass a support that is directly aimed at low income users. this congress has not been particularly supportive of folks who are in poverty. the conversations that have been on the hill have been hard to decipher. >> there's a sense in which the f.c.c. is putting the cart before the horse. they haven't done a study to suggest these are the drivers keeping low income people from adopting broadband service and this is the amount we need. we don't know if need $9 a month for 10 million people rr $45 a month for fewer people. the f.c.c. hasn't done that

level of analysis. >> that's tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. british of the parliament fox on his support for the u.k. leaving the e.u. u.k. holds a referendum on june to decide whether to lee or stay in the european union. >> good morning, welcome to the center for strategic and international studies, i'm heather conley, vice president here, what a delight to welcome the right honorable dr. lien foxx to discuss an important upcoming referendum in the united kingdom about its continued membership in a reformed e.u., loaded words as i'm sure dr. foxx is going to help us more clearly understand. dr. foxx is elected to

parliament in 1992, he has served in a number of distinguished leadership positions, including co-chair of the conservative party in 2003. but perhaps we know dr. foxx best here in washington when he served as secretary of state for defense from 2010 to 2011. dr. foxx is a doctor, the doctor is in the house to help us understand british politic the implications of a potential exit. i have to say one word before we invite you forward. we are privileged to have you here with us. last year when we had a discussion before the general election last year and all the polls showed a very tight race, we weren't sure, it looked like labor could be gaining, and dr. foxx said with clarity, no, the conservatives are going to win, it's going to be a majority. we all looked at you and we went, right.

well, we know what happened system of at the end of this conversation, i am going to ask dr. foxx to put his crystal ball on the table to tell us how the u.k. referendum will work out. if his predictions are as accurate as last year's, we may have some punters and bookers among us who will be placing some money on the desk. with that, join me in welcoming dr. foxx. [applause] >> thank you for inviting us back to csis, it's always a pleasure to be here, though it ems every time we do, we get the coldest weather in washington, d.c. last time there was snow and ice storms. r. fox spks it's a flash -- dr. fox: it's a pleasure to

discuss this here in america. those of us who want to lad leave the european union want to regain criminal of oour law making, criminal our own borders and control our own money. those arguments for sovereignty ought to resonate better here than anywhere else. but instead, we seem to be getting an argument about none of those things, simply asking what's europe's phone number? and we have to, i think, get the debate going on this side of the atlantic for reasons that i will come to in a moment. no one in the united kingdom under the age of 58 has had an opportunity to determine whether we stay in the european union or not, as the european union has fundamentally changed since think parents voted, my father voted to join the common market, my mother voted against it, think still never made up over that one. and the european union has changed fundamentally from what was originally going to be a

treaty and economic organization into an organization that moved ever closer to political union. and that is at the heart of the debate that we have. we'll come back to this, but a lot of people in britain would have voted for a looser arrangement, more economic arrangement, with a reformed european unit but this is not on the table in the referendum. it's clear the european union is not fundamentally reforming and continues on its path to a crune, and i don't want to live in a country whose identity is being subsumed into a greater identity. i think the history of supernationalism is not a happy one. so three reasons that i gave, getting control of our laws, getting control of our borders, and getting control of our money. since 1996, at the european council, where these big

decisions are taken about the direction of policy, on 72 occasions, the united kingdom government, either labor or conservative government, has objected to policy being made on the basis that it was against britain's national interest. on 72 occasions we've lost. on attempts to block what was happening in. and it's resulted in a whole range of laws being applied to the united kingdom, some very trivial. we had everything from european applied laws on u.k. sale of u.k. mineral water in the u.k. to the sale of pigs between farms to our lifeboat service becoming answerable to our brussels based maritime safety board. we've had drivers allowed to drive on british roads with european permits fall well below the standards we would have allowed in the u.k. but

nonetheless, irrespective of safety concerns, we've had the law applied to us. if you look at the way in which these laws are applied, they tend to be regulations of our market and interference in constitutional issues. at the european parliament level, we are increasingly following the lisbon treaty, more power has been vested between 2009 and 2014, opposed a number of measures again there on 86% of the occasions where the majority of british m.e.p.'s opposed legislation, we were the feeted. so there's a clear path emerge bug more of our laws being made overseas, it's difficult to put an exact number on it but about 13% of our primary legislation and 50% of our secondary legislation is now made outside the united kingdom and i find that simply from the question of sovereignty quite unacceptable. then we come to the issue of our borders, and this is probably

the most explosive issue in this referendum in the u.k. for the largest number of voters because n the last 10 years, we've had 1.162 million net e.u. citizens settle in the united kingdom and as long as we are members of the european union, we have no ability to restrict e.u. migration into the united kingdom. and that for a relatively small country, geographically, has put huge pressure on school places, on housing, on health care, in particular areas where that density has been very high. and it is resulting in these sort -- in the sort of backlash that is not, in my view, conducive to good social stability. and the irony perhaps of all this is that many of those who are supporting britain remaining

in the european union, the goldman sachs european commission funded establishment supporters campaign, other people least likely to worry about they require a public school place or access to an n.h.s. doctor or public housing. and so there is something, i might say, of an element of the peasant's revolt developing in this referendum where it is ordinary voters against what we perceive as a well-funded, extremely cruel e.u. establishment and we've all seen in our, in western countries in recent years, what an anti-establishment movement can look like politically and i believe we're seeing one develop in the u.k. at the present time. the second element about the border issue is that we've seen a million and a half plus migrants moving into the european union from syria, afghanistan, eritrea, somalia,

pakistan in the last year. the question is, where do they ultimately end up? and for us, the point is this. when those million and a half plus the million we're expecting this year, when they get citizenship of any european country, whether it's hungary, germany, austria, whatever, they will automatically have a right to come an settle in the united kingdom a united kingdom whose economy is growing much faster than any other in europe. we were introducing a new, much highser minimum wage in a very short time which in my view will act as a magnet for many of those coming. the german authorities don't know of those who come into germany, whether they are economic migrants, genuine refugees, or sympathizers with some of the hardline islamist groups or in fact maybe an infiltration into that migrant population of some of those groups themselves and neither will we know. think that's a security risk

far too far that we're taking. into all this mix, we're now told that president obama will be coming to the united kingdom, i understand to take part in a rally in support of britain remaining in the united kingdom. let me put this as gently as i can. we have a strong protocol of noninterference in domestic issues of our friends and partners and believe me, that is a massive domestic interference. if the president wouldn't come speak in the yibetted kingdom before our general election because of protocol, why would it be acceptable ahead of a decision which is purely one for the british people and about our destiny. and i might put it this way. the president is entitled to his to s and will be entitled express them when the u.s. has an open border with mexico and a court able to overrule the

supreme court. when those conditions are met then we might listen to the advice that we're being given. now the third area of policy which is in terms of money, this is an area that's increasingly controversial in the u.k. we pay a net sum to the european union of about $10.-- of about 10.5 billion pounds and the problem with this is that our contribution in terms of budget is largely dependent upon our success versus the success of the continental european economy and that's largely the injure zone. so brittain -- britain stayed outside the ewe row because we believed it was an -- the euro because we beliefed it was an outside bronth, it had an unsigned a tech churk allowed the wrong countries to join and having allowed the wrong countries to join, they had policies that caused them to diverge from the criteria and millions of young europeans are being sacrificed on the altar of

a single currency, with countries like spain with unemployment well over 50%. here's the but, when the british economy grows faster than the injure zone because of the euro zone's problem of their own making, it goes up, because our g.d.p. is going up faster than ours. we're being forced to subsidize project we stayed out of because we didn't believe it was a good idea. try explaining that to british taxpayers. we have to look at all these elements and then we get to the political element that perhaps is causing the biggest friction in all of this. it's what the remain campaign and the british government themselves have dubbed project fear. in other words to try to get the british public so afraid of the alternatives that however much we might dislike the current

treends in the european that i've set out, they will remain. we're told we'll be cast into utter darkness a leap into the blackness if we ask to leave the european union that we would be, quote, isolated. let me just end on this thought before we open up to discussion. the day after britain would leave the european union, we've still got a permanent seat on the u.n. security council. we still have one of the world's top 10 economies. we still have the world's fifth biggest defense budget. we'd still be at the center of nato and the center of our commonwealth, we'd be members of the g-7 and the g-20678 it doesn't exactly sound like grands aligsism to me. and this idea that britain can only cope in an era of globalization, one which i believe we are uniquely suited for, if we have the european union holding our hand with its hand in our pocket at the same time, i think is for the birds. it's time for people of britain to regain their birth right to

determine their own destiny and that's a decision for taos take and i hope all those who believe in the values that i mentioned this morning of sovereignty, our ability to make our own laws, control our own borders, determine our own finances, will respect our right to do so. and will not interfere in something that is frankly none of their business. thank you. [applause] >> you've given us plenty to talk about this morning. thank you so much. what i thought we'd do is we'll we'll bit ourselves and let our audience jump in with a lot of questions. i'd like to start with the politics around the referendum and what some are call -- lling the ides of march, i.d.s., the former secretary of work and pension, the politics

around this referendum seem to be getting more difficult for the conservative party and the cameron government not better. in some ways, this whole referendum was a way, these are my words, to put back the schism that was growing within the conservative party as well as the popularity of the united kingdom independence party. how does this -- describe to us what the politics are. did mr. smith's resignation, was it about the budget was it about europe? was it about a leadership challenge to david cameron? what -- help americans understand what is going on in the government right now. mr. fox: as a conservative member of parliament, there are times i think we should be paid double since we're being the government and opposition simultaneously and have no effective opposition at the present time since the labor party almost got wiped out in the general election there is and always has been a strong division inside the conservative

party, largely based on the issue of sovereignty which is much more an issue to conservatives than to other parties. but, and here's quite a big but, we now know from all our polling that this is a schism that runs right through the british public. our latest polls pretty much neck and neck the two sides, remain and leave. i think the current government leadership was totally taken aback by the strength of parliamentary opinion, about half our members of parliament are signed up to the leave campaign in one form or another. much bigger than i think that the government predicted. and i think that's because the strength of feeling on that is not necessarily shared by all those at the top of the government. so you've got the parliamentary party and the conservative party in the country which is even more in favor of leave, probably about 70% and you can see where the difficulties begin to come from. the decision to have a

referendum i think was largely of the se to the rise anti-european party and when i said that we were going to win the general election, there were a number of my senior colleagues who i'm not sure believed they were going to win the general leaks outright. as i think we discussed last time, one of the consequences of winning that election would be that we were transported very quickly into the environment of the referendum, which is where we now find ourselves. i'm not sure everyone was exactly prepared, perhaps emotionally, for what that was going to bring. as i kept telling my colleagues, as soon as we got into referendum territory, friendsships would be cast asunder and enormous passions were going to be aroused by this. it was inevitable that we would get to this point. so the thing i'm surprised about is that anyone is surprised. we will simply have to take this

through to june 23 and it is going to be bumpy and it will be difficult for the government to get any legislation through. it will be impossible, i think, for them to get legislation that originates in europe through this period because for people like myself it would be sheer hypocrisy to leave the european union but vote for legislation coming our way as a result of that legislation. it makes for a difficult period as well and the message i give to my colleagues is, you know we have a five-year parliament act, we can't have an election until mid 2020. and we will have to govern the country as the majority party in that time and how difficult or how easy that's going to be will demend on how nice we are to one another in the run up to and during that referendum. so a little bit of respect for one another's views, little less personalization of it all, wouldn't go amiss. and you know, i really regret the way that some of my colleagues have spoken about one

another in the last few days, just watching it from the outside as it were. there's a real chance of increasing the bitterness in this dispute and personalizing it which is unnecessary. and it will make it must have more difficult to put humpty back together again. >> your comment about preparing for this referendum and your comments on the economy, my concern is that we're all not preparing for june 24, the day after the referendum. we've already seen market respond quite negatively after prime minister cameron secures his deal with the e.u. and brought it back. felt like the markets woke up to say, hoe my gosh, this thing is fwing to happen, looking at holding, saying it's getting tighter it seems to me the government is not preparing for the potential of a lead decision. it wants to focus on remaining. yet i'm not sure, i don't see

the lead campaign helping me understand what happens the next day if markets, is this a global shock, you have c.b.i. and others coming out saying there could be a pretty dramatic decrease in g.d.p., unemployment. it's a project fear, i understand. it's scenarios -- mr. fox spks it takes a lot of bun -- c.b.i. takes money from the european union. >> there have been others. but we don't know. mr. fox: we don't know. anybody who says that there's a risk-free option is not telling the truth. in my view, there are huge risks to remaining in the european union. the injure zone is going to -- the euro zone is going to integrate more so the architecture of the european union will change anyway. we don't know what would be staying in, if we stayed. one thing you can be sure of in our referendum is the status quo isn't on the referendum. it will change in one way or

another. i think the euro zone will have to go into closer economic and political union. i think that will create two european unions, the euro zone and noneuro zone countries. ever since the euro was created, i felt like the european union was leaving us irrespective of what we did. it's an interesting question in what you say, heather, about the role of government and the problem we have at the moment, there's a con flation between the government acting in the national interest and the leaders of the government acting in the interests of the remain campaign. because in british politics before we have a general election, the civil service will sit down with the opposition parties and they will ask them what their legislative program would be and there's contingency planning for a change of government. yet our current government refuses to allow the civil service to do contingency planning for a leave vote. now that seems to me irresponsible.

and it's being done because the government is acting in the interest of the remain campaign because they believe to do contingency planning accepts that there may be a leave vote. so there's a conflict here between the government acting as the government and national interest and the government acting as the remain campaign which will need to be resolved and the government was defeated a few times in parliament over the nature of the question for the referendum and the government's ability to exempt itself from existing legislation that governed referendums in our country. so there is no risk-free option. there's a risk to leave, of course there's a risk to leave, because there's no actual plan the way -- there's no actual plan. the way it works, we probably use article 50 of the lisbon treaty at which point we'd go to our yuferepeen partners that we decided to leave, we are giving notice we are negotiating that

exit. but there are constraints on the reality of what will happen because i saw that c.b.i. report this morning, if you read the subtext of the report, it's very, very unlike the headlines of the report, but that's what people do when they commission these reports looking for a specific answer. one of those constraints is the nature of our trade with europe. we have a huge trade imbalance with the european union as a country. way back in the mists of time 10 years ago in 2005, about 55% of our trade was with european union. the last quarter of last year just dropped below 40%. so we are actually increasing our trade with the rest of the world, our number one trading partner being the u.s. and our trade with europe is shrinking, largely as the european economy stagnates. now we're told, you'll never get a trade deal, you'll never get

-- never get a good trade deal with europe. that would be odd because they export 60 bhl pounds worth of goods and services to us than we export to them. are we expected to believe ms. merkel will say, don't sell b.m.w.'s to the british as a punishment or they'll say don't sell them french wine because they voted to leave, or you can't get italian furniture in britain? there's a french presidential election next year and a german general election, do you think their leaders will tell their people, you must have lower profits and higher unemployment to punish the british? countries don't trade with countries. companies sell to consumers. if they make goods goods and services at a price that's the right quality that people want to pay. we have lots of fluctuations in the global economy, currency being one of them because we're outside the euro so i think

people have to be rational about all of this and this nonsense this morning from the c.b.i. that we'd lose a million jobs when in fact what they were saying was, if you look at the worst case scenario you would create a million jobs fewer than you might create in the best case scenario between now and 2030. there are too many variables in that. it wasn't worth reading beyond the first couple of paragraphs. >> how specifically is the leave campaign address what the consequences of this will be? this could potentially give a shock to the global economy at a time when china, the global demand is questionable, europe is stagnating, the u.s. is doing ok but you know, no one needs the shock. what is the leave campaign's response to that? mr. mr. fox: the not risk-free. but i don't think the elements to create shock are necessarily there.