Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business  CSPAN  February 23, 2016 6:00pm-7:01pm EST

6:00 pm
been indicted by the u.s. department system for hostage taking activities. given her terrorist back gound and she is in custody and no longer a threat to u.s. national security. that is that's how we can make sure we take actions that put the safety and security of the american people at the top of the list, but also make sure that we're acting consistent with our values. that's exactly what we've done. reporter: so essentially what you're saying is because these facilities exist, would it not then be possible to take some of the detainees that are currently housed at guantanamo and move them to some of these other facilities? ultimately emptying out the prison in cuba? mr. earnest: what we would have to do is evaluate the security measures in place at those other facilities and get the agreement -- reporter: -- [inaudible] -- if they're housing terrorists -- mr. earnest: first of all, we're talking in some cases about terrorists.
6:01 pm
who may pose a significant threat. so we need to make sure that we've got the security errs in place to keep them -- measures in place to keep them safe. this goes back to the core problem at the prison in guantanamo bay. why would another country want to take them? why would they want to take on that problem? members of the united states congress certainly don't want to take on that problem and that was a problem that was created by the united states government, so this is why it's so important for us to resolve this situation before the next president takes office. because it ends up being a sticking point in our relationships with friends and allies and partners with whom we have other important business to conduct. and this lingering issue is one that only serves to cloud the agenda that already has a lot of high profile and high priority national security items on it. reporter: last one on the high court. is it your concern that if what's happening now or what appears to be happening now, which is it's become political, and it may not -- this
6:02 pm
particular nominee may not get an up or down vote or even a hearing, that when the tables are turned and eventually the democrats are in control, that will this will happen again? this will cloud the process? in the future? mr. earnest: there is no denying that what republicans are threatening to do in the context of this supreme court nominee is unprecedented. since 1875, a president's nominee has never been denied a hearing unless that president later withdrew that nomination. this would be an historic and unprecedented acceleration of politicizing a branch of government that's supposed to be insulated from politics. and while, as the president has acknowledged, there are democrats and republicans who are responsible for contributing to that, there is no denying that what leader mcconnell and other republicans are proposing to do right now would turbo charge that process
6:03 pm
subject some ways the supreme court to the kind of politics that they've been insulated from for more than two centuries. that would be a shame. and fortunately, i'm not the only person that's making that argument. we've seen statements from people like senator kirk, senator collins, even somebody like senator blunt, a republican from my home state of missouri, has indicated that he believes that this nominee should get a hearing. again, in some ways, if i were sitting in your chair, the observation i would make is, there's actually not bipartisan support for blocking the president's nominee. in fact, there's actually bipartisan support for making sure this individual gets a hearing, a fair one, and gets a timely yes or no vote. hopefully that's what we'll get. michelle. reporter: today in spain, a former gitmo detainee was arrested as a suspected
6:04 pm
terrorist recruiting for isis. it was said he was a leader who was trained in weapons and explosives. does that matter? mr. earnest: it does matter. because of the changes that this administration put in place, again, back on january 22, 2009, the recidivism rate that we've seen from individuals who have been transferred under the formula that was put in place by the obama administration, that recidivism rate is in the single digits. it's quite small. and it underscores how important it is for us to have in place the appropriate security arrangements when we transfer an individual to another country. we can do this safely, we know how to do this. and that's why the president believes it's both in our national security interest, but it also is much more cost effective than what's happening right now. reporter: this isn't just one or two of the 35 that are potentially going to be transferred, went back to fight
6:05 pm
for isis. this example today, this is somebody who is in europe while the united states is fighting isis. so, of this new batch, let's say the recidivism rate is in the single digits. in this period of time, when we are at war and isis is acting in other countries besides iraq and syria, isn't that a significant threat? mr. earnest: it's certainly a threat that we're mindful of. again, according to your own reporting this individual has been apprehended by authorities. the other thing is that if we're at war with terrorist organizations that are seeking to radicalize populations around the globe and we know that the prison at guantanamo bay is a prominent recruiting tool that they use, why wouldn't we take that away from them? look, even the gorey videos that were released by isil a couple of summers ago eadvocated some of the themes and imagery from the prison at guantanamo bay. we know that they are seeking to capitalize on thatted a a propaganda victory and we should take that away from them. reporter: but taking the same guys and transferring them to prisons in the u.s., wouldn't
6:06 pm
that then just become the recruiting tool and wouldn't -- you know, as the argument has been, if there were to be some violent protests surrounding that, it would be on u.s. soil. i guess at the crux of it -- mr. earnest: i don't think that's a legitimate argument. i don't know that there are any huge protests that are taking place on cuban soil right now. reporter: just as a recruiting tool, your argument that gitmo is the recruiting tool, wouldn't that just then be transferred to having these guys still held indefinitely in the u.s.? being the same thing? mr. earnest: their argument would be tougher because the detention we would have from place would be cleanly in line with american values. that we would ensure this is consistent with the way that american citizens are treated. at certainly is more nsideration than these terrorists give to their adversaries, to say the least. but we would be on quite strong
6:07 pm
moral ground to say that these individuals are being treated humanely, that the conditions in which they are detained are safe and clean and reasonable. and we would be taking away an important propaganda tool that we know that extremist organizations like isil capitalize on. brett was just standing here at this podium talking about how we're mindful of the threat that isil poses because of their ability to radicalize people around the globe. let's make that little harder for them. let's close the prison at guantanamo bay. reporter: in addition to what we heard the attorney general say not too long ago, we just saw the joint chief send a letter to the hill reiterating that. that it would be illegal based on current law to transfer people to the u.s. so, given what we've heard now, several officials today surrounding the illegality of making a transfer like that, why are you not ruling out
6:08 pm
executive action to do something more -- mr. earnest: because i'm not going to take any of the president's actions off the table. that's not what our focus is right now. our focus right now is quite clear given that we have presented to congress exactly the plan that they asked for on exactly the time frame that they asked for. and what we're asking for is legitimate consideration be given to the plan. we've got a very strong case to make about how the plan that we have put forward would save taxpayer dollars and make the american people safer. that's the essence of our plan and it's time for members of congress to put their own political considerations aside and actually consider what's in the interest of the national security of the united states. reporter: that's your focus but it's hard to ignore what so many have said surrounding what's legal an what's not, including the attorney general. so, how can you still say that executive action is possible? that would put a is he veefer
6:09 pm
limit -- a severe climent on what the president could do -- a severe limit on what the president could do. mr. earnest: we're acting on getting the congress to act on the plan that we have presented there today. if they do that, that would make any sort of discussion about the president's executive actions obsolete. and that's why we're going to go ahead and continue to put pressure on congress to do the right thing. reporter: the president could still take executive action on gitmo, is that what you're saying? mr. earnest: what we're focused on right now is congress taking action and i'm not going to stand up here and unilaterally take any options off the table when it comes to the president's use of his executive authority. reporter: and lastly, speaking of action in congress, mcconnell now is saying that a hearing is not going to happen, it's now the consensus of those on the judiciary committee that it's not going to happen. so how does this change the white house's reach-out to the hill and your strategy in general? mr. earnest: i can tell you that since we last met here,
6:10 pm
that the president did make some additional calls to members of congress, including some republicans, including people who served on the judiciary committee. i don't have specific names at this point. but that outreach continues and it will continue. and i would just observe that while there may be -- while senator mcconnell may claim some unanimity of opinion among republicans on the judiciary committee, he cannot claim unanimity of opinion on when it comes to republicans in the united states senate. we've seen unambiguous statements from people like senator kirk and senator collins that a hearing should take place. i certainly value their opinion. i think senator mcconnell does too. but i think the opinion that we all value the most is what's required by the united states constitution. and the institution of the united states senate has a duty to function and ensure that the supreme court of the united states has what's required to function as the founders sbebleded. reporter: you still think there's a --
6:11 pm
mr. earnest: founders intended. reporter: reporter: so you think there's still a chance of it? mr. earnest: absolutely. i think based on what senator kirk and collins and senator coates has also indicated that he believes that he said, if the president nominates someone, which is his choice, i think that person would deserve a hearing. senator blunt said, i certainly don't mind taking a vote on this issue. neither said coates nor senator blunt represents a state that president obama won in the re-election of 2012. neither of them would describe themselves as a moderate. both of them are conservative republicans. but both of them are out there saying publicly that if the president nominates somebody, they're ready to vote on them. again, i guess it will make for an interesting caucus meeting when senator mcconnell brings together the members of his senate, maybe they're having lunch right now.
6:12 pm
reporter: -- [inaudible] -- every member of the judiciary committee signed a letter saying no hearing. mr. earnest: i was in the meeting, obviously, i was standing right here. i'm not sure what senator kirk, senator collins, senator blunt or senator coates had to say about it. we'll do a couple more. hands in the back. jordan. reporter: thanks. back to gitmo. we were told earlier today that it was outreach torrell advantage congressional parties on the white house's plan. i was wondering if you could expand on which members were warned about the plan before it was released and who did the outreach and whether the president has personally called members of congress about the plan? mr. earnest: let me check on that for you. i know there was extensive congressional consultation that occurred before the plan was formally released. but let me see if i can get you some greater detail about how that took place. reporter: as you mentioned, you've given congress the plan that ask asked for, as you put it, and the administration is citing the broadband on spending money to, quote, to
6:13 pm
move detainees to the u.s. as why you can't give a specific site. but the same law, the ndaa, inspections have said in this report that you have given that congress asked for says that the report is supposed to include the specific facility or facilities that are intended to be used or modified to be used, etc. , why -- how are you filling congress' request for that? mr. earnest: i think what this highlights is that every year in the ndaa the congress writes in what language that specifically prohibits the administration from undertaking plans that would lay the groundwork for bringing individuals from the prison at guantanamo bay into the united states. so i think you have highlighted yet another example of congressional dysfunction that they've written the law that includes varying guidance. but the truth, is there's no reason we have to sort of go through all of. this why don't we have members of congress who actually are willing to put politics aside,
6:14 pm
focus on the best interests of the united states, and have a serious conversation with the administration about the most effective way for us to close the prison at guantanamo bay, save taxpayer dollars and remove a recruiting tool that we know isil is eager to use. reporter: senator mccain, when he ran against the president, said he also supported closing guantanamo bay. he's now the armed services committee chairman and he said that the report today is a vegas menu of options -- vague menu of options, not a credible plan for closing began tan -- guantanamo, let alone a coherent policy to deal with it. is senator mccain just being political? mr. earnest: i think you'd have to ask him how he arrived at his conclusions. i think the facts here are pretty clear. we've made clear exactly how the american people can save money by closing the prison. we've made clear that this is something that can be done safely, consistent with our national security interests. in fact, we've made clear that it would enhance the national security of the united states,
6:15 pm
to pursue this approach. and again, it's going to be up to congress to decide whether or not they're willing to enjoy the benefits of the outline that we have put forward. are they going to put forward their own plan? there really hasn't been much of a discussion about that. i don't know if there's a congressional plan to try to achieve these goals. after all, we know there are a lot of republicans who are running for president, who are saying that they would make foreign policy decisions based on the advice they get from our military leadership, consistent with the need to cut government and cut wasteful government spending, and to make sure we're doing everything we can to make america strong and to protect our national security. if we're making decisions based on that criteria, congress would implement this plan today. reporter: last question. in the president's trip to cuba, my understanding he's not planning to visit the base, either the soldiers or the prison. was it confirm that and considered and dismissed or was it just never seen as a
6:16 pm
possibility? mr. earnest: i don't have the details yet on the president's trip to cuba. at this point i don't expect that the president will go to the base at guantanamo bay. but let me check on that for you and we'll see if we can confirm that in advance of a more full schedule. reporter: the president seemed pretty frustrated today, talked for a lightning time about this plan that he's sending to congress to close the prison at guantanamo bay. he talked about the number of hours he spent working on this and how many policies -- [inaudible] -- and it was obviously a major promise of his campaign. he's now in the final year in office. he basically acknowledged the impossible politics and you referenced it earlier, no members of congress want these prisoners in their district, their state. i wondered if you could give us a sense of, get us in his head a little bit, how he feels. he's got 10 months left and this is still an issue that he does not seem to be able to get rid of. mr. earnest: i think the way the president sees this is he
6:17 pm
sees it as an opportunity that he has to prevent a problem that was passed on to him from being passed on to the next president. he takes that approach not knowing who the next president's going to be. his view is that the interests of the united states would not be enhanced by passing this problem on to either a democrat or a republican. in the oval olves. -- office. and the president's acknowledged that the politics of this are tough. and that there's an opportunity given that he didn't have any more elections to run, vice president biden doesn't have any more elections to run. that means they have some clarity of judgment that they can use here to do the right thing for the american people. and, again, in a lot of ways, what we're looking for from congress is, even if there's a reluctance on the part of some members of congress or many republicans in congress -- many members of congress, from cooperating with the administration on this, at
6:18 pm
least they could just remove the obstructions. just get out of way so the people who are trying to act in the best interest of the american people can do their job. that's in some ways what the president is seeking. if congress feels like they don't want to be involved in this effort, as i mentioned, there's plenty of good reason for them to want to be involved in it. it would enhance our national security and save taxpayer dollars. but if they don't, they can the obstructions and allow the united states -- to allow the president of the united states, his national security team and our uniformed leaders in the military, take the steps we believe are necessary to enhance our national security. we can do all of that, save taxpayer dollars, that would be the right thing to do and the president's hopeful he can get that done before he leaves office. reporter: -- [inaudible] -- on the supreme court. you seem to be making the argument in 1992 that even though he had in the past as chairman of the judiciary committee moved along republican nominees and was willing to in a future administration, that there was something about the election year and being in a campaign that made it inappropriate to
6:19 pm
fill a vacancy, either by the president or the senate moving it. can you explain to us what is different from june, 1992, to february, 2016? why is his answer different? mr. earnest: there wasn't a vacancy. there was nothing that he said then that prevented the senate from fulfilling its constitutional obligations. he made clear later in his speech that if the president consults and operates with the senate, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did justices kennedy and souter. justice kennedy was confirmed in an election year. so, again, when it comes to evaluating the performance of members of the united states senate, vice president biden's got a record that's pretty tough to beat. this is not -- as i mentioned, we're simply asking the united states senate in 2016 to do
6:20 pm
what senator biden did himself in 1987 and 1988, when he gave fair consideration to a nominee that was put forward by a president in the other party and vice president biden advanced the process so that individual could be confirmed in an election yearment we believe that the senate this time should do the same thing. reporter: after that he said he didn't think that was appropriate. mr. earnest: i think it depends on which part of the you take a look at -- which part of the remarks you take a look at. there was not a vacancy. there was nothing that senator biden said that prevented the senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty. reporter: [inaudible] mr. earnest: i wasn't there in 1992. i was a senior in high school. of. it's hard for me to assess with a lot of clarity exactly what the dynamics were. but what is clear is that there was no vacancy at the time, there's nothing here that he said that prevented the senate
6:21 pm
from fulfilling its constitutional duty. and in fact in the same speech then senator biden made clear that he would be open to consultation with the white house, that was controlled by the other party, and fair consideration of the thomny that was put forward by the president -- nominee that was put forward by the president of the other party. reporter: could you tell us a little bit more about the president's -- [inaudible] mr. earnest: that's right. the president periodically has con -- convenes meetings with his national security team to discuss the ongoing effort to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. the president will convene the meeting or the next meeting on thursday at the state department. over the last few months the president has convened these meetings not just in the situation room but in other places. you'll recall the president went to the pentagon to have this meeting. i know there was a discussion about our counterisil campaign
6:22 pm
at nctc last year. and this week the president will be convening the meeting at the state department. obviously the state department's been doing important work to try to reach this agreement or at least an understanding around the cessation of hostilities in syria. so given the primesy of the work that's been doing at the state department right now, the president thought it made sense to convene the meeting over at the state department this time. last one. reporter: thank you. speaking of election year politics, i wanted to ask you about something the president said last week. several times you've indicated you wouldn't endorse in the presidential primary and the white house chief of staff said he'd see who the nominee is at the end of the primary process. that's not our job and then he'll decide. the president's remarks during his press conference seem to suggest that he could endorse a democratic candidate in the race. he said ultimately, i will probably have an opinion on it. based both on being a candidate of open change and on a president who has some knicks
6:23 pm
and cuts and bruises from getting stepped on. my question is, what's changed recently that the president is now suggesting could actually endorse in a primary? mr. earnest: if you take a look at the way i scroo described the situation, we don't currently have a plan for the president to make public his preference in the democratic presidential nomination process. the president will fill out a ballot and vote absentee in illinois. the illinois primary is march 15. so he's got to make a decision pretty soon, if he hasn't already. so the real question is whether or not we're going to make that public. right now our plan is not to make that public. but i wouldn't rule out the possibility that we may decide to make that public at some point in the future. ok. thanks, guys. we'll see you tomorrow. reporter: -- [inaudible] -- short list mr. earnest: i'll try to come with that tomorrow. >> bring the binder. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]
6:24 pm
>> republican voters heading to caucus in nevada this evening after hillary clinton won the democratic caucuses in the state on saturday. they get under way about 8:00 eastern, 5:00 on the west coast. and starting around midnight eastern, we'll bring you live results and speeches from some of the candidates including ted cruz and donald trump. you can see campaign coverage live here tonight on c-span. >> the columbus dispatch is reporting that governor john kasich's path to the nomination is getting murky. joining us on the phone is host: the good news for your governor is he's the last of several current or former governors still in this republican race. the bad news, he's teetering on the brink of irrelevancy. how so? caller: -- guest: as we were talking off the air, you know, if you'd have told me -- the kasey
6:25 pm
campaign people a few months -- kasich campaign a few months ago that they'd be the last current or former governor standing, that they'd outlast former governor bush after south carolina, they'd be turning cartwheels because they would think the nomination was within hand. but as we all know, 2016 has turned out like pretty much no one has predicted. govern everer kasich did well in new hampshire. got second place finish. got a lot of publicity, some endorsements. south carolina he didn't compete very much and finished next to last down there. now comes more states that are not necessarily real friendly to someone of his middle of the road philosophy. i say middle of the road just in comparison to the rest of the republican field, quite frankly. we have the so-called s.e.c. primary or supertuesday coming up on march 1. a lot of the states are not very friendly to his type of candidacy. the other thing is, many of the
6:26 pm
states have a threshold. meaning that unless you get 15 or many more cases at least 20% of the vote, you don't even qualify to get a single delegate. so, of course governor kasich has not gotten that total, even his good showing in new hampshire did not have him at that threshold. and that means if you don't make the threshold, all your vote goes to the front runners. and just sort of adds to their total. that leads us toier d -- to where we are today. a lot of people are pressuring governor kasich to get out of the race, clear the space for marco rubio to be the standard bearer for -- i guess what we've been calling for lack of a better term the republican establishment against trump and maybe to a lesser extent senator cruz. host: governor kasich has been spending a fair amount of time in michigan. that state's primary is beyond supertuesday, on march 8. can he survive that long? guest: that's when the -- that's one of the big questions. there are so many states voting on march 1, then a handful a
6:27 pm
couple of days later. it just seems like he's got to breakthrough some place, certainly at the absolute least, the strong second or a very strong third some place, or he is going to, you know, lose relevancy. so far he's kind of gotten some mulligans from the pundits who i guess kind of nationally decide such things collectively. he didn't compete very much in iowa. he did poorly there. a bit the same for south carolina. didn't do that much there. although he was present for i think six days leading up to that primary. again, not sort of his type of state. there's only so many mulligans you get in a real golf game, at least when i play, unfortunately. and governor kasich's going to get so many in this political contest as well. to say all these supertuesday states, you know, well, they're just not my kind of states, especially states like -- they're not all in the south. you've got massachusetts, you've got virginia, you know,
6:28 pm
not the deep south at least. you've got vermont. bernie sanders' home state. saying that is not a relative moderate republican's type of state is going to be a tough argument to make, i think. host: let's talk about ohio. that primary's slated more march 15. you write that governor kasich's objective is to widdle the field so he can get a clear shot at donald trump. what do the latest polls tell you? guest: we just had a fresh poll out today. right now he's running second to mr. trump. it's only a five-point gap. but second is still second. and as you well know, march 15 starts the winner take all contest. there's no points for a close second. the winner gets all of ohio's delegates. the same with i think the other states. voting that day. so the significance really goes up. and of course if john kasich
6:29 pm
can't win ohio, it is totally game over. there's no reason to continue. i think you would talk to most political people and they'd say, he'll make up that five points and be able to hold his own turf. what's important about this, how much effort is he going to have to put into holding the home country, if you will, and not going to states like illinois and missouri that he was pointing to, to win that day? again, needs delegates. very obviouslyy he needs some wins. so he was hoping that perhaps senator rubio would be busy fighting off mr. trump, perhaps senator cruz in florida. it urn ourns out governor kasich may be fighting off the opponents in ohio, just to remain viable in a tote totally ust-win state. host: thank you for your time. we appreciate it. guest: thank you. appreciate the opportunity. cred c.d. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]
6:30 pm
-- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> looking live at the u.s. capitol as we await for the house to gavel back in momentarily for a couple of votes they earlier today debated some five bills including a measure that would call on the president to submit to congress a national strategy to combat travel by terrorists and foreign fighters and they'll vote on two bills this evening, speeches expected, special order speeches expected before they gavel out. later this week in the house, work on legislation relating to defendants in fraudulent lawsuits and state courts and also a bill aiming to expand opportunities in hunting and fishing on federal lands. live coverage of the house here on c-span. 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postpone. votes will be taken in the physical lowing order, h.r. 4408 by the yeas and nays. h.r. 4402 by the yeas and nays. the first eelect treasonic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as a five-minute vote. the unfinished business is the
6:31 pm
vote on the motion by the gentleman from new york, mr. katko, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4408 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. e clerk: h.r. 4408 a bill to combat terrorist travel and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
6:32 pm
6:33 pm
6:34 pm
6:35 pm
6:36 pm
6:37 pm
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
6:41 pm
6:42 pm
6:43 pm
6:44 pm
6:45 pm
6:46 pm
6:47 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on --s vote the yeas are
6:48 pm
6:49 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 388, the nays are zero.
6:50 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 391, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the bill spassed and without objection the motion -- is passed and without objection the motion --
6:51 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 392, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting 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 house will be in order. -- ers of the house
6:52 pm
would the house come to order. members, please remove your conversations from the floor. clear the aisles. find a seat. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. upton: mr. speaker, it is with deep sadness that i ask to
6:53 pm
drealings the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: -- to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, michigan has had sufficient tough -- some tough times lately. flint and now kalamazoo, which was rocked this past weekend by just a terrible random act took six e that lives. so i rise today with my michigan colleagues to offer support and encouragement for the victims, friends and family -- victims' friends and family. we should continue to keep their in hear -- them in our hearts in our minds, and i want to thank the countless folks on front lines who helped prevent this fradge from even being worse. the swift actions of those on the ground deserve to be commended. particularly the sheriff from kalamazoo county, led by sheriff richard fuller, kalamazoo public safety cheefer, jeff -- chief, jeff hadley, and the mayor. i would ask my colleagues and those who hear this message across the country to pray for the families of the six victims and the recovery of the two
6:54 pm
injured, including 14-year-old abigail of battle creek, who is fighting for her life and tiana of richland township who put herself in front of two children and was shot multiple times. it's heartbreaking but we know our kalamazoo community can and will recover from the tragedy. but we will never forget what happened. remember the lives of mary lou, mary jo, dorothy and barbara, and tyler and his dad richard. this tragedy will not define us, it will not divide us and it will not defeat us. we are kalamazoo. with that, i ask that the house pause for a moment of silence and honor of those impacted by this very tragic event. the speaker pro tempore: all will rise.
6:55 pm
without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. hurd, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4402 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4402, a bill to require a review of information regarding persons who have traveled or attempted to travel from the united states to support terrorist organizations in syria and iraq and for other purposes for other purposes. -- and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a pive minute d vote. -- this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house
6:56 pm
proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on