tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN February 25, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
right there, the statute does not need to be amended, it's working already. and that's why we don't need to include bad faith insurance cases in the wrongdoers protection anth from multi state and multinational corporations. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. . mr. buck: i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and yield back. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the oes have it. mr. cartwright: we ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will e postponed. mr. buck: i move that the committee do now rise.
the chair: the question sont motion the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have tsm the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 3624, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole of the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3624 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 1 - a -- 12-a of rule 1, the
states in their effort to stop the president's war on coal. natural resources held a hearing on the puerto rico debt crisis. energy and commerce announced it will hold a hearing on the zekea virus last week. week.a virus next and because the work of our armed services committee, the president was forced to reveal his plan to try and transfer terrorist detainees to the american soil. this is about half of the examples to hold the administration accountable for the american people. we are focused on being a proposition party. we're taking a bold jearned
that we'll present -- agenda that willed to the american people. we are holding forums for our members to offer their ideas. his is truly a bottom up conference. you can read the mission statements and track the progress of this project. with so much at stake at fall, we need to unite conservatives. you will hear me say this all year long. we don't like the track the country is going on. most people agree with us. we feel obligated to offer the american people a very clear and compelling choice so they get to decide the direction the country is going to have and we want to offer a better way forward. that's what this is all about. with that i'd be happy to take your questions. reporter: i just want to talk about the presidential race. as far as any -- it looks like trump is well on his way to perhaps getting the nomination. and if that comes to be, it seems like he's in opposition as to where you are, whether
it's free trade, whether it's domestic energy. let's get your thoughts on that as to how you can perhaps -- you might be republican agenda -- mr. ryan: kerry, right? reporter: yeah. mr. ryan: i said we will be able to work with whoever our nominee is. we'll be able to present a unified front. i said 100 times i won't comment what's up and what's down in the day-to-day presidential election contest that primary is well on its way. it's got a long way to go. but we'll work whoever our nominee is. what i want to focus is this agenda project. i'm focusing on regular order. i'm focused on a bottom-up approach to running the congress the way the founders intended congress the way to be run and we're offering the country a very clear and
compelling choice and where our intention is. reporter: i will get at it maybe a different way. [laughter] the speaker: you want me to replay what i said? reporter: you said you want to give the country a choice but how can you present that choice when your nominee has no interest in pursuing some of the policies you outlined? the speaker: we'll cross these bridges when we get to it. i believe we'll be able to unify as a party and whoever the nominee is will make a unified front work. by the way, congress will have our own ideas. we're republicans. we all have individual ideas and we gravitate from the same principles and we'll be applying those principles and offering people a choice. i'm very excited about that project here in congress and like i said, whoever our nominee is, i'm sure we'll find a way working together. reporter: mr. speaker, a lot of people think the reason there is a distance on the electorate because people here in washington overpromise. we saw that with the tea party movement of 2010. i know we're still trying to deal with health care.
when you talk about laying out the broad strokes of agenda, you said many of these things we might not be able to pass this year but isn't that the problem? i understand the mechanics of not passing. the speaker: you're right. reporter: leading the leaders down the primrose path and you say, here we impagain. the speaker: i find it whether it's lincoln days or listening sessions kind of explaining the way our constitution works, giving civics lessons. some people may have led others to believe just with congress we can rewrite laws or just with congress we can overturn laws we didn't like. you got to remember president obama came in with a supermajority. he came in in his first term, first term, nancy pelosi was speaker of the house. harry reid was majority leader with 60 votes in the senate and they were able to cram through a liberal progressive agenda on an unsuspecting country and the rest is, as we say, history. then in 2010 and 2014, the american people pushed a
republican congress back in the majority, in the house and the senate. now, we're doing everything the constitution allows us to keep this administration honest, to hold them accountable, to stop bad ideas from getting worse and following forward. but at the end of the day, if we're going to pass laws, repealing and replacing obamacare, fixing those problems with dodd-frank, whatever it is, we need to pass a bill through the house, through the senate, pass the filibuster, in most cases and then we need a president to sign it into law. that is how our system works. that is what a constitutional republic functions like. and so this is why are our agenda project is so important. and this is why the conversation we have to have with our fellow countrymen is if you want to break this gridlock we have, liberal progressive president, conservative congress, we need the country to settle this for us. we need the country in the election in 2016 to break this
impasse so that we can actually get these into law. a lot of people, myself included, are extremely frustrated. we're extremely frustrated because we think the country is on the wrong path and that president is leading the country on -- that the president is leading the country on a wrong path but we need a president to put us on the right path and that is why the kind of conversation we're having with the country. look, the whole thing is up for grabs. supreme court, congress, presidency. if you don't like the direction america is headed, then you need to change these things. you need to fix these things. you need to help us get us on the right path and we owe you, our fellow citizens, our better way forward. reporter: it sounds like your agenda shouldn't be these policy things. it should be siffings lessons. ou said that -- civics lessons. you said that. the speaker: we need a president to sign good bills into laws and not thwart our effort, or a president signing bad bills into law with a bad
congress. reporter: following up on chad's question, what's your view on what accounts for the establishment candidate? anti-establishment candidates, the trumps and so on, what is behind that. you mentioned we need rapp president. but we don't always get, you know, the trifecta. you have divided government. the speaker: i know. reporter: so does congress -- is congress some of the reason the dysfunction -- the speaker: i'm not going to get into the presidential election botts that's not my ole -- election is not my role . barack obama had the trifecta with harry reid and nancy pelosi. and he passed through an agenda that is far to the left of where the american people are. and he passed through an agenda that i believe is giving us this stagnant economy, that is keeping wages down, that has
made america weaker on a foreign policy front, that is harming our military. that is -- that is not helping us get kind of economic growth we need to get people out of poverty. so that's the agenda that he was able to pass in a place when he had a full congress. we think that's the wrong way to go. and so we believe, we owe it to our constituents, to our fellow country men and women to offer a better way forward and that's exactly what our agenda project is all about. but this is congress. we don't -- we don't sign bills into law. we write the laws and pass them to the president to be signed. we need a president that we can work with to put these reforms into law, to get our country on the right track. reporter: what's your discussion with chairman price and the budget? the speaker: thank you for another subject. it's the same thing we do every year. we're a month ahead of schedule. so we feel good about our time line. chairman price and the leader, mr. kevin mccarthy are going around meeting with various
committee chairs. every time you write a budget resolution it effects the jurisdiction of every other committee. so they're having the conversation. so the listening session on the budgets, i did probably 30 of these when i was budget chair just about every year, is having listening sessions with our members, we're gaining input and talking to the various committees how to put together a budget resolution. reporter: do you feel confident you can pass a budget? the speaker: we're going to have a conference where tom price will lay out a plan. like i said, i'm not the top-down tramp down your throat kind of guy. we'll leave this up to the membership and the membership will be making that decision. do i believe we should pass a budget, we should have a fully functioning appropriations process? of course i do. i think that's very important. but this is a decision we'll do jointly. reporter: can i ask you about the transportation and infrastructure chairman bill shuster. he's involved, he's romantically involved with an
airline lobbyist with a bill in front of the committee. is it appropriate for him to have these relationships? the speaker: no comment. reporter: mr. speaker, last month comprehensive legislation that would bar [indiscernible] had the first republican co-sponsor in the u.s. house. given your vote in 2007 for the employment nondiscrimination act would you be open to have the -- the speaker: i'm a regular order guy. you got to get bills out of committee to get them on the floor. reporter: and to bridge the question. you had a small and influential group of people in your conversation that are asking you to move forward with a budget that would surely be blocked in the senate and has no path forward. how do you, you know, have this conversation about overpromising and potentially having to underdeliver or get yourself in a situation where in july you just have the [indiscernible] the speaker: we're going to have a lot of different
budgets. there are always a number of budgets that are too the right of the house budget committee product. that's been the case as long as i can remember. so i expect an r.f.c. budget, maybe other budgets what the budget committee will produce every single year. >> last question. reporter: you are a studious guy. have you burst yourself in delegate allocation and do you man on doing that? the speaker: no. i have not versed myself in it. it's the house rules. i see this as more of a ceremonial role that i have and, no, i'm busy trying to make this place work. thanks, guys. >> should congress address the apple encryption issue? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the speaker from midday today. the house is out. should be back in about an hour or so to finish up work on a measure that would establish lawsuit jurisdiction standards. also debate a bill that would expand access to federal lands
for recreational sporting activities, hunting, shooting and fishing. debate when it happens. live coverage here on c-span. f.b.i. director james comey had been busy -- has been busy on capitol hill. first before the judiciary committee and now the subcommittee appropriations on his department's budget for 2017. we'll show you as much as we can until the house resumes in just a little bit. mr. comey: i think we made a good down payment on that effort. >> the approach we took, mr. chairman, in order not to overwhelm these good men and women was ask the f.b.i. to come up with sort of a good housekeeping seal of approval from the f.b.i., best practices, as the director just said. and the best practice is what you just published and i thank you very much for that, the agency's under the jurisdiction of c.j.s. are compelled to follow the best practices to protect the integrity of their supply chain because we know the threat posed by a lot of countries but china is the
worst offender in building in hard wiring, trojan horses or back doors into computer chips. i think all-star has just forbid -- i think australia has just forbid, they won't allow a governmental entity to buy reuters manufactured by walway. they won't buy them because of the pervasive threat posed by the chinese in using that chinese-built equipment to penetrate the government. how -- what's the response been, director, from agencies once you published the best practices? are they adopting -- do they seem to be adopting the best practices that you have published and are you working with agencies to ensure they understand their supply chain threats? director comey: i'm told they are making the right positive noises about it. it's probably too early to say what progress people are trying to push those best practices into their procurement. they understand the threat, to open eyes, to what nation states could do to us. and so we really have to watch
this space to see how well they do it. that's part of our job to watch that space. mr. culberson: could you tell us, this is an open setting, and you talked to me in a classified setting. what can you tell us -- you opened some eyes in some agencies and had some positive result. is there anything you can tell us today in a setting like this? director comey: i don't want particular countries and companies to know what i know. but there's no doubt there is a concerted effort by hostile states to use not just traditional espionage but to use so-called legitimate vent ventures as an instrument to gain access to our systems and our processes. and it's a fairly sophisticated effort that goes on. and as i said, you really require as eye opening -- i see the world fairly darkly given the nature of my life. but it's important to make sure that some of our colleagues and agencies that don't have enforcement responsibilities they see enough of the darkness to know that they should ask
good questions and ask hard questions. that's what this education process has been about. mr. culberson: i guess what i'm driving at, does it appear to be successful? director comey: yes. mr. culberson: ok, sir. thank you very much. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. .y. 2016 c.j.s., uploads through the combined d.n.a. index system. we're very concerned that the current requirements make the validation of the state very time consuming. while we want to ensure that it has a high level of integrity, it's important to get the information in a timely fashion. especially in the light of our need to bring sexual offenders and other violent criminals to justice as soon as possible. we ask that you examine ways to expedite this process. so how are you moving forward with the recommendations included in this report? director comey: thank you, mr.
honda. this is a topic one you and i have spoken about in the last two years. we have really wrestled with this whether there is a way to have less than 100% validation of a private lab into what we put into the gold standard database on d.n.a. which is coatas. honestly, we've come to the place where we can't allow anything less than 100% because if we do anything to damage the gold standard that is the nation's d.n.a. database by letting subquality work being deposited into it, we're going to be sorry someday. what we try to focus on, we looked at that in good faith and unable to come to a place where we can weaken the requirements of a private lab. instead, we are trying to focus on ways in try to equip the states in particular to catch offenders quickly while the validation process is going on. and as i understand what we've been trying to do is, equip states to allow private labs to make inquiry of the state's d.n.a. holding, to put -- to
put data into the state's d.n.a. holding before we allow them to put into the federal because most of the hits of any particular offender will be in a single state and so we think that deals with part of the problem. and we haven't done it long enough to know whether people will be happy enough to stop beating on us. but we held the line on not allowing state private laboratories direct access to cotas. we have tried to speed it up to work with private laboratories in a better way. mr. honda: explain to me the relationship of states' process and their inputting their data into cotas and how are they reaching the 100% validation standards that you are requiring? director comey: my understanding the way it works -- if i screw this up i'm sure experts will fix it and will come back to you but i think the way it works is the states have to validate 100% of the work of the private lab before it can be part of cotas and that is a time consuming process. we think it's necessary to
maintain the purity of the gold standard, but what we've said is we have no problem if you want to use the private labs result in conjunction with the state's depository of d.n.a. data, to use that portion of the data that the state holds, as i understand it, and we think that deals with the large part of the problem because most offenders, the offense is going to be within a particular state and so the hits will be generated from in-trust state data is the way i understand it. mr. honda: notting to argumentative but you're saying at states can achieve 100% validation, according to your gold standards and you're requiring each state to have these private entities to go on and then it -- it goes on to goes into the f.b.i.,
into the codis system? director comey: we won't allow a state lab to let them put their information into codis. we checked them 100% and so it's good to go into the codis database. mr. honda: who validates it 100%? director comey: i don't know the answer to that. i think we rely on the states to do it. i think there is an audit function to check out what the states are doing. mr. honda: so can local law enforcement and direct attorneys' office achieve that validation requirement that you require? director comey: can local labs do it? mr. honda: local labs in the d.a.'s office or can law enforcement offices be trained o do that aside from private
entities? director comey: i don't know the answer to that. mr. honda: your comment of things just happening in the did an we just saw -- analysis in allegany county and we had a hit in florida so i think the value of this kind of system is that bad actors can run around different states and some many, many crimes are left unsolved until we can input some of the data we have in other places. i think we need to keep moving forward. pushing this but i appreciate our conversation, hope we can continue this to the point where we can get rid of the 500,000 untested rape kits that are sitting on the shelves. it's 500,000 victims and perpetrators who are not
getting justice. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. honda. i recognize chairman rogers. mr. rogers: e] you're battling with apple over phone of the san bernardino shooter. you are hoping to gain access to that phone to find out if there are other people involved and so forth. the c.e.o. of apple says that your request would create dangerous legal precedent. would endanger the privacy of anyone with an iphone.
what do you think? director comey: what we're doing in california with the u.s. attorney's office in the san bernardino investigation is we have a search warrant for one of the mass -- the terrorist's phones and the phone is one that is locked and can't be opened with his pass code. if we try to guess his pass code after the 10th guess, the phone will essentially auto erase. and so what the judge in the court -- search warrant came from issued an order to the maker of the phone must do two things. you must shut off the auto erase feature on that phone and you must also shut off the feature when you start to guess, makes you wait a longer period of time between each guess. the reason being so the f.b.i. can then electronically try to guess this terrorist password. instead of it taking 10 years it can be done maybe in minutes and maybe hours. that's the judge's order. the manufacturers will explain its legal case either today or
tomorrow. that's the great thing about the american -- they can litigate and object. i don't fully honestly understand all the argument about privacy. my view of this matter is, this is a single phone in a very important investigation where the ask is to write a piece of software that will work only in that phone. not in anybody else's phone and you, apple, can hold the phone. so that the software you write never has to leave your premises. we will send you guesses electronically and if you open it, tell us if it comes open and so i don't quite understand the -- some of the comments that have been made publicly about how this is going to affect our world. but i think it does illustrate the bigger challenge we face. i'm a huge fan of privacy. i love encryption. it's a great thing. but our need for public safety and our need for privacy are crashing into each other. and we got to sort that out as a people. sometimes i hear companies say we're going to get you to a place where no one could ever look at your device.
and even i react to that quickly saying, that's great. i don't want anybody going through my phone. then you stop and say, wait a minute. law enforcement sometimes saves our lives, saves our children, saves our neighborhoods by getting search warrants from judges. sometimes for suitcases or for apartments. sometimes for phones. and if we're going to get to a world where there are spaces in american life that are immune to judicial suit warrants that's a very different world than the one in which we live and the f.b.i. shouldn't make this decision. the american people should decide, how do we want to be governed? that's why i think this matters so much. san bernardino matters because it's a huge important case but the bigger issue is tremendously important. mr. rogers: what would you be looking for in this particular case? director comey: in this case we're simply looking for compliance with the court's order that apple write a one-off piece of software that shuts off the auto erase issue. mr. rogers: what i metropolitan was, what could you possibly learn from this -- from being
able to access the phone? director comey: possibly, as i said, i don't know whether there is evidence of the identity of another terrorist on the phone or nothing at all. but we ought to be fired in the f.b.i. if we didn't pursue that lead. it's just we could not look at the victims in the face and say, you know what, we decided not to execute a search warrant on that phone because it would be awkward or people would feel uncomfortable about it in some way. we have a duty to try to do that. now, if a judge says, no, the law doesn't permit that, we are big fans of the rule of law and that will be the end of it. but we think we have to follow that lead. this is a live investigation and it's hard to imagine a circumstance where our work is ore important than this. mr. rogers: well, as you said before, it leads to a discussion of the larger picture, of the use of the new technology that we enjoy today for evil purposes. what have you say about that? director comey: this is the hardest problem i've seen in
government. because it implicates america's gift of innovation, implicates privacy. it implicates the rule of law. it implicates public safety. and so it can't be bumper stickered. that's what i explain to people. the f.b.i. has a limited role here. first, it's to investigate cases to try to save people's lives and people from pain. the second is to make sure folks understand this world some people imagine where nobody can look at your stuff is a world that will have public safety costs and we may decide, ok, it's worth it, but we shouldn't go there without people understanding it. so what i'm hoping is we will never have a day where folks look at us and say, what do you mean you can't? you have a judge's search warrant, right? a child is missing or there's been a horrific crime, what do you mean you can't? before we ever get to that, we need to talk about it and understand how do we optimize the things we care about, privacy and safety, how do we do that? it's not easy. mr. rogers: quickly. my time is almost out.
heroin. in the last decade, heroin use in this country has increased by 63%. how much of that is attributable to the mexican cartels, like santa loa, and how are we letting this amount of heroin come into the country? director comey: the country is facing -- mr. chairman, you know this better than any american -- the country is facing a wave of highly pure heroin that is washing across now primarily the eastern half of the united states but as big a wave of high pure methamphetamine on the western part of the united states and the waves are moving towards each other and they're starting to pass each other in the middle of the united states. almost all of it comes from mexico. methamphetamine and heroin. it's highly pure. it's cheap because the mexican cartels are growing the poppies in southern mexico. so their business, their supply
lines are very short so they're pushing this highly pure heroin into the united states and especially kids are finding it so easy to move from opioid abuse to this highly pure heroin abuse and dying in the process. so this is something i've had my eyes open to and formed a partnership with the d.e.a. to do something about, but it's washing over us from mexico. and there's lots of challenges to the interdiction effort. the director of national intelligence this morning was talking about how in his view we need more resources for the coast guard because their ability to interdict these multiton loads has been diminished as their resources have been diminished. i don't know the answer for sure but i do think it's an emergency in the united states. mr. rogers: and now they're mixing very powerful synthetic called fentanyl with heroin not knowing the potency of it and overdosing and dying. what can you say about that? director comey: fentanyl is 40
times, 50 times more powerful than heroin. they're mixing fentanyl, a lot of which comes from china, which is something we're now focused on, with the heroin and even people think they are used to the heroin are killed in a snap when it has the extra hit of fentanyl in it. the reason you mentioned a film that chuck rosenburg, the d.e.a. and i did an intro to to educate families what's going on here, there are thousands of people dying in this country from heroin. tens of thousands. from opioid abuse and heroin. it's so big of problem it's almost hard to get our minds around but we simply must. mr. rogers: more people dying from opioid overdose than car wrecks. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. culberson: thank you, mr. chairman. mrs. lowey. mrs. lowey: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, again for articulating so clearly the challenge we're saving. we are facing between privacy
and security. i won't continue on that path but many of us have very definite views on that. and another irissue related to cybersecurity. -- and another issue related to cybersecurity. and attacks by cybercriminals on corporation payment systems resulting consumers' personal information. in the last few weeks, the fast food restaurant wendy's announced an investigation of a potential credit card breach of which they don't know the size yet. other recent large financial data breaches affecting payment systems include target in 2013, 40 million payment cards, 70 million records of customers' names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses. adobe 2013, 152 million customer names, encrypted pass words, encrypted payment card information. home depot, 2014, 56 million
customer email addresses and payment cards. just some of the examples of breaches that we know of. and thousands more, i'm sure, are not printed in the newspaper because the companies don't want to get this information to their stock holders. your budget includes an additional $85 million to address the problem, but it seems to me that unless there are consequences, arrests and prosecutors, these will continue to be very attractive activities for criminals. i can remember being briefed 10 years ago
by ray kelly, the new york police department, and it seems they were always behind. they'd always hear of these events after they occur. so how many of these large cyberbreaches and with the responsible parties being arrested and prosecuted and what can we really do about this? how do we improve it?
what concerned me most about the briefings i got from police commissioner kelly is we were always behind and very often the corporations don't want anyone to know. director comey: yeah. mrs. lowey: so thank you. director comey: the honest answer to how many question is not enough. we don't have good statistics on how often it's happening for some of the reasons you alluded to. but the major problem we face is, so many of these offenders are outside the united states. because the internet allows them to travel as a foteon. they don't ever have to come -- photon. they don't have to come
through j.f.k. they're able to do it through the internet. we have to impose a cost so they don't think it's a freeby to steal from america. -- freebie to steal from america. and they need to feel somebody, breath on back, whenever they're sitting at the keyboard wherever they are sitting around the world and the only way to do that is to lock them up.
we've made progress in a couple of ways. from the f.b.i.'s perspective, we're embedding more cyberanalysts overseas to have them sit with local police and local counterparts as old fashion as that seems so we can get the evidence to make the case so we can get our foreign counterparts to arrest these people. that's the first thing. the second is we're trying to make it less profitable for those that steal. what happened since ray kelly's briefing is the crooks, their world has evolved to such a sophisticated place. they actually have marketplaces now for criminals where if you steal a credit card information you don't even have to know who to sell it to. go to the marketplace and hire a cashout person or hire a carder or hire a coder so we're focused on trying to destroy those marketplaces because it's actually a weak spot in the criminal word. they evolved and gotten sophisticated but it allows us to attack them at a hub that will disrupt their activities. we have to lock people up and send that message around the world and we got to attack them where they're most vulnerable
and that's in their marketplaces. that's how we're thinking about the strategy. mrs. lowey: you know, i mentioned several situations that have been pretty public. how good is the communication between the private sector and your office or other law enforcement offices or are they still not quite sharing? director comey: no, it's gotten much, much better just in 2 1/2 years i've been director it's gotten better because a board of directors, boards of directors are asking about it. c.e.o.'s are asking about it. do we have a relationship with the f.b.i. or for the payment card folks, especially the secret service, and are they sharing information with us and are we shake it back? that has improved dramatically. it's still not good enough because our economy is so big and so complex but it's in a much better place even than it was 2 1/2 years ago. people understand the business imperative, that it's -- it will save you money if you develop a relationship with us so we can tell you what the indicators are of the crooks so you can lock your door against them and so that we can quickly respond if you're attacked.
mrs. lowey: i just wonder -- and i'm going to close with this, mr. chairman. in my discussion with some corporate boards and individuals, most of them have hired huge numbers of people to deal with this at their own business site, and i just wonder, how much communication is taking place between you and your staff and the corporations before something happens? is there sharing of technology or are they all keeping their own -- own systems to them sneffs director comey: i think the companies would tell you this as well. it's gotten much, much better. we're doing things like -- i won't get into boring details but we built something called the mall ware investigator. the f.b.i. for years had a data print, like a fingerprint database, of the malicious code when people break into the system and we would query it.
what we did was told our trusted private sector partnerships, we'll give you an account, let you hook up to that. if you encounter malicious code, type it into, dump into our database and you'll get an answer in a matter of minutes or seconds. it's in the company's interest because they get quick answers. oh, you should call l.a., the l.a. f.b.i. has dealt with that. that's one example. but we got to get better because even that is not what they call machine speed but that's much better than it was three years ago. mrs. lowey: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. culberson: very important question, mrs. lowey. i can tell you from personal specious i've had several companies in the houston area, one research center here even recently complimented you, director, and your team for they showed up, the f.b.i. showed up at their doorstep and said, we think you have a problem and they sat down in a private setting and walked this research center through the attack that had taken place
that the researchers had no idea that once again the chinese had broken in and stolen all this stuff. so you do great work in this area and something we need to continue to help you with. mr. palazzo. mr. palazzo: director, great seeing you here. last year my first hearing of this subcommittee you testified that there are active terrorist investigations in all -- >> microphone. mr. palazzo: you testified that there was active investigations in all 50 states. since then two students in my home state of mississippi were arrested trying to join isis. can you provide us an update on what the f.b.i. is doing to keep u.s. residents from joining isis or other terrorist groups? director comey: yeah, thank you, congressman. i remember well our conversation a year ago. the picture today is worse in some ways, better in some ways. worse in the sense that the number of investigations we
have into people who are in some spectrum from consuming isil's poison to acting on it has continued to slowly rise. we have about 1,000 now in the united states. that's very concerning. the good news is we see fewer people attempting to travel to go to the so-called caliphate which is a nightmare on earth, but the so-called caliphate. we see that number dropping. and i don't want to be overconfident in saying what to make of it. i hope part of the reason is we have given people significant -- not we, the federal courts have given people significant jail sentences for joining isil or attempting to go to isil so people understand there are huge costs associated with dabbling with these satisfyages. and so i'm hopeful that trend will continue. it's been over the last six months the number has stayed down. but the case from mississippi illustrates the challenge, especially young people who are unmored, who are looking for a
center in their life and a lot of people find that in healthy ways will find it in unhealthy way through isil's propaganda. it remains a dominant feature of the f.b.i.'s work in the united states. mr. palazzo: in your testimony, you mentioned that terrorists are utilizing social media and the internet to disseminate propaganda and recruit american citizens to travel to isis and you said those numbers seem to be trending down, but they're still trying to recruit people to do harm here in america or attack us from within. what is the f.b.i. doing to detect, monitor and prevent terrorists from recruiting within our own country? director comey: everything we possibly can under the law. we are trying to make sure that we have appropriate source base. that is we have people in communities who will tell us when they see something odd going on. we try to make sure that we have a robust undercover presence where appropriate to find out what's going on. we try and make sure we're tightly connected with state and local law enforcement and i
probably should have said this one first because it's the deputy this was and the police officers who know their neighborhoods and know the kids in the neighborhood, who will have a sense of who's going sideways so that's really important. and then we're building relationships with american companies, all of whom think about this the same way. they do not want their products used by terrorists, and then last one i'd mention is, we're also making sure we're tight with our foreign partners who may see things overseas that are leads into the united states so we can follow up on. i probably forgotten something but those five are probably the core of it. mr. palazzo: ok. thank you, director. i yield back. mr. culberson: -- thank you, chairman. thank you, mr. director, for being with us. i'm honored to represent 11 tribes in the district i represent and i think our nation's responsibility to promote tribal sovereignty and to protect treaty and trust obligations. i take that seriously. mr. kilmer: right now 25% of
violent crimes prosecuted by the u.s. attorney's offices are tied to indian country. so i'd like to hear more about how the f.b.i. promotes and supports self-sufficiency for tribal law enforcement, i'd love to get a sense how much money the f.b.i. is making money through this budget request to supporting tribal law enforcement and also just get a sense internally, how do your operations, you know, just within your own capacity, support the investigation of violent criminal acts in indian country? director comey: thank you, mr. kilmer. thank you for your interest in this issue. i worry a lot that at times the reservations seem like crime scenes without a constituency. that no one speaks for the violence and especially the rm to children on so many of our reservation lands and among the native american people. so thank you for this. we deal with it operationally
through the safe trails task forces. two of which we work out of the seattle office. so that's a huge feature of our work, especially west of the mississippi. it's one i've taken a personal interest in. i have visited reservations. when i was deputy attorney general. i have two daughters who on a church mission went to an indian reservation two years ago and came back and said, dad, you're the f.b.i. director. you must do something. and so they are probably the most important constituency in my life and so i've had to report to the -- chairman culberson has an important constituency but i have to report to my daughters and tell them what i have dean. so among the things i've done is try to incentivize our talent to go do that work. so the details aren't important but we've created incentives for our best and brightest to go, special agents and analysts to go to indian country to go do that work. we continue to do a lot of training with b.i.a. and tribal law enforcement. i don't know the particular
numbers. because they have to be the front line of defense. the f.b.i. is enormous but it's not as enormous as this problem so we rely on the b.i.a. and tribal law enforcement but it is not -- i'm not here to tell thaw i think the f.b.i. is solving this challenge, honestly. it is so big and so horrific and so invisible to so much of our country that there's not an easy answer. mr. kilmer: i'd very much like to follow up with you and your team on that. i want to switch gears entirely. earlier this month, a hospital in los angeles fell victim to a ransom scam and ended up paying $17,000 to hackers just to regain access to the hospital's computers. and we heard about these sort of attacks being perpetrated against cities and law enforcement agencies and schools and companies and just regular citizens where people are often forced to pay their own money just to get access to their own technology.
i'd like to just get a sense from you, what sort of safeguards against these types of cybercrimes should we be looking at? what can we do? you know, i know as the f.b.i. investigates these sorts of things, are you learning any lessons from that? and is there any direction to us as policymakers in terms of what might be done in the space that may not currently be providing you the resources you need? director comey: yeah, thank you. this is a phenomenon that's sweeping across people and institutions, nonprofit and profit institutions. from the computer hygiene perspective, the lesson we learned here is, everybody within the sound of my voice should have a good backup. whether it's your laptop or whether you run a hospital or a business. you must ensure that you have adequate backup. because the internet is a very hard place to police successfully. at some point someone may try to lock up your device and then demand money for it.
you're immune to them if you have a good backup, as a company, as a hospital, as an individual. so that's my overwhelming piece of advice to folks. and from our perspective to follow-up on the conversation with mrs. lowey, we have to impose costs on those people who are mostly outside the united states reaching in and locking up people's systems and then asking bit coin or money be wired to them. so we need to track those people down and lock them up to send a message that this is not some game or some freebie. it's hard but something we are trying to do every single day. that's my two pieces of reaction. mr. kilmer: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. mr. culberson: thank you very much. judge carter. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman. director, welcome. you know the high regard i have hold your agency and you personally and all of these agents. i think you are an example of are lence that we have and
very proud of. i want to start something that's local to me. after much frustration with the v.a. on the lengthy time waits and the conspiracies that seem to have existed to shuffle papers and harm veterans, i asked for your assistance and y'all became involved. and i am very aware from having dealt as a judge with the f.b.i., you don't comment on investigations. not asking you to do that really but in a way because we get about 250 to 300 calls a week and they know you're there. you're working. they're concerned. these are veterans that are concerned. what can we tell the veterans about progress on looking into whether there is actual criminal activity that stories we heard about people making money over delaying veterans getting reached? director comey: yeah, thank you, judge. the most you can tell them is
we're working and working hard. i checked on it yesterday knowing your interest in it. we're working in it. as you say we don't talk about our work for good reasons. i can assure the folks who call you are on it and are working very hard. mr. carter: most of them trust you too. that would be a good message to send. secondly, something that's very important to me. yesterday -- this week i introduced a bill to expand cops grants to include the active shooter training. i'm well aware that f.b.i. is heavily involved in active shooter training and i think it would be -- give that access to local law enforcement something many of them can't afford now to get cops grants -- use cops grants. can you give us your comments on the active shooter training that the f.b.i. gives and receives and then the expansion to -- the necessity to expand to other law enforcement,
understand how that active shooter program works? director comey: that alert training, which you alluded to, comes out of the great state of texas out of a university, texas state, i think. mr. carter: yes, sir. director comey: saves lives in the united states. and it is so important. we've trained tens of thousands of law enforcement folks using it so they can then train others so that all million people in law enforcement in the united states should have that training and then it ought to go beyond that, frankly. so i'm a huge fan of it. any way it can be supported and spread more is in our national interest, in my view. mr. carter: well, i think making to one of the criteria you can apply for cops grants for is a good concept. right now it wouldn't be covered, but we think we can -- we're going to get a huge amount of support. i think from both sides of the aisle we'll get a huge amount of support because i truly believe after the shooting in fort hood and realizing that both officers who responded and were successful in bringing down the shooter were both
active shooter training, one of them by the f.b.i. so it's quite -- it obviously works. director comey: yeah. i hear about it all over the country, judge. i travel a lot and meet with state and rockyal law enforcement and they talk about it constantly and we produced a movie called "the coming storm" which is about an active shooter incident at a community college that is so good and so important to law enforcement we have made tens of thousands of copies and just given it away around the country. mr. carter: it's great and thank you for that. by the way, as part of the process we contacted your office. they were very cooperative and very encouraging and i'm happy to do that. thank you, mr. chairman. ail get the next round. mr. culberson: thank you, judge. mr. jolly. mr. jolly: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. director, thank you for being here. i appreciate the full committee chairman bringing up the current matter with apple. i have some very strong opinions about that and there's a question here but i want to
start by thanking you for being diligent and pursuing the court order and staying on top of this. look, my view of the world and i realize it is one member of this committee, doesn't necessarily reflect the entire committee but this is a court order applying to one phone and apple is refusing to comply with that order and frankly if their failure to comply means there is additional information out there that has already contributed to other incidents or will in the future contribute to other incidents of terrorism or national security, i think apple leadership risks having blood on their hands. and i think tim cook is going to have a very hard time explaining why he stood in the way of justice are on this issue. so i thank you for what you're doing. this is not my iphone you're trying to look at. this is the iphone of sayed if a rook who i believe is an -- farrook who i believe gave up his civil liberty when he killed and injured. i thank you for what you're
doing on that. and it led to a bit of is up position of the content of communication. from a faxual standpoint, though. -- factual standpoint, though. what are the files on a typical phone and what profile might you be able to build of his activity or communications? as a lay person, i would presume phone calls, messages, but what profile do you not have of this murderer that you might otherwise have? director comey: the particular challenge we face in this case is the phone was last backed up over three weeks before the attack. and so very often -- and, again, i don't do any of this to pick on a company. i found the company has been helpful in a whole lot of ways. they got to the point where they said, we will not assist you further for reasons that i don't doubt they hold honestly. but the -- if the stuff is backed up to the icloud, apple corporates with -- cooperates
with chord orders. all kinds of records we can get lawfully with jauge's warrant. and anything that was backed up with the cloud may still be on the phone. that will be photos or texts or notes or g.p.s. information, where this phone traveled. one of our real concerns here, 19 minutes we can't figure out where they were. after the attack. we looked at every gas station camera, intersection camera. we have the whole route ber we're missing 19 minutes before they were killed by law enforcement. the answer to that may be on the device. mr. jolly: as a phone, typically you would have some type of fps or tower signals you would know -- g.p.s. or tower signals you would know where they were? director comey: sure. they would have location services turned on. these phones are wonderful. i love them. and our entire lives in a way are on the phone. and that is why? people ask good questions about privacy. that's why i want people to take a step back.
if they got to a place where it is warrant-proof, where would the world look like if it is warrant-proof? it's not the bureau going opening people's devices. no. if we want to open your device, we go to a judge, we make a showing of probable cause. the judge issues a specific warrant telling us what we can take from the warrant and what we can take from the device and how we can do it. mr. jolly: well, i thank you for that. obviously you know the perspective from which i'm coming. and i am sick and tired in this town and across the country of people not siding with law enforcement. and in this case, that includes apple and that includes tim cook. you got folks up here i know side with law enforcement. i appreciate what you're doing. i hope you do prevail. we will lead that -- leave that to the courts to decide. i don't doubt their intentions. and i agree with you. i don't doubt apple's intentions. i just think they are wrong on this one. that they are erring on the side of privacy and cloaking what is a national security moment in which they could contribute to a safer america
and they're choosing not to so i appreciate you. thank you very much. mr. culberson: thank you, mr. jolly. director, i recently visited the national cyberinvestigative task force to see the very serious and persistent threats to our information security systems and infrastructure and last year the country learned of the huge loss of personal data from the office of personnel management, again, stolen by the chinese who continue to be the worst actors out there. and during the super bowl weekend, hackers posted online personal information for over 20,000 f.b.i. and 9,000 department of homeland security employees as a source of great concern to all of us. the department of justice said it was looking into the unauthorized access of a system operated by one of its components, and there have been news reports that an arrest has been made. director, you're asking for $626 million for your cybersecurity programs which is an $85 million increase.
could you talk to us about how the f.b.i. is dealing with this threat and the realities of intrusions like this and how will this requested increase help you address that threat, both for the f.b.i., for the department and for the country in general? director comey: thank you, mr. chairman. we are dealing with this threat in a number of different ways, which i can summarize briefly. we're trying to shrink the world. what i mean by that is we are' trying to impose costs -- we're trying to impose costs on the bad guys so no matter where they are we can reach them and put handcuffs on them. we're trying to shrink the world within the government. 'm so glad you visited the ncgitf. probably 10 years ago the cyberresponse was a bit like -year-old soccer. everybody chased -- i have five children so i watched a lot of soccer. what they represent is about 20 federal agencies with responsibilities that touch
cyber sitting together, which is a big deal in our national government, and sharing information about what do you see what do you see, and who's going to do what about it. so we have really spread out on the field, to stay with the soccer metaphor, and we're looking who has the clearest shot, who is in best position and that is the answer because the problem is so enormous that nobody can do it alone. if we all chase it we're going to ignore a big piece of it. that's the first thing. the second thing is, what the budget increase is for, we need to make sure we equip our people with the right stuff to be able to respond to this. . we need high speed data to move these data. the last piece is train, vital for us to train our folks and state and local law enforcement to respond to this threat because it's get manager sophisticated every tai. trying to i quip our folk, make sure they're trained well and we need to attract great people to
do this work for us and keep them in the harness, doing the work of the f.b.i. that's how i describe our strategy. mr. culberson: mr. honda? mr. honda: i have serious concerns about the privacy implications of the f.b.i.'s ongoing aterpts to force apple which is basically in my district, to create a hack to allow the f.b.i. to gain access to encrypted information on the phone of one of the san bernardino shooters. i realize you face a tough challenge investigating this attack on our nation and communities. however, what the f.b.i. requests will echo beyond this case and create a weakness that can be exploited in attacks on apple by those seeking to gain access to the new code the f.b.i. seeks. these possibilities must be weighed against information the f.b.i. will be able to recover from the phone of the san bernardino shooters. you have said repeatedly that this is about one phone, yet
there have been multiple news stories highlighting other phones that have government seeks to access. can you promise that this is the only time you will ask apple or any company to create software to gain access to a phone? and as you know, apple is an international company. if capple were to comply with the u.s. government's request to build code to a specific -- to its specific needs you worry about china and russia requesting the same. director comey: thank you, mr. honda. first let me say what i understand the court's order to to -- to be directing, i'm not an expert but have talked to a lot of experts. i don't think it's accurate to say that the manufacturer is being asked to create some code that could get loose on the land and do harm in two different respects. first, what the court directed them to do is to write a piece of code that would only work in
the terrorist's phone. wouldn't work in anybody else's phone because it's written to the unique signature of that phone. and the second is they will have custody of it the entire time the phone would be at the manufacturer, the code would be at the manufacturer, and i think they have excellent security, in fact, in 2014 and before, apple would unlock phone routinely in response to search warrants and do it at their headquarters. i never heard anything about anything getting loose and hurting us there. so i greet that honestly with a little skepticism but the judge will sort that out. mr. honda: let me ask a question, then. are you saying that apple's technology, for, say, i6, the access code is only for one individual phone and not -- it on't affect other i6 phones. director comey: i'll try to explain this, i'm not an expert.
the relief we seek is increasingly obsolete. this is a 5c phone running ios9 that confluence of operating system and hardware is increasingly outdate. the 5c still has the ability for aple to write a unique code for that one phone that will shut off the auto delete function and shut off the delay function. i don't believe that's possible the way they built the 6 and built after the 5c. they did the hardware differently so i actually don't think that even if the judge says this is appropriate, after hearing from apple, that the technique will be useful in later generation phones running ios9 and thereafter. that's what i'm told by experts. the great thing about the american court system is they'll be able to bang together and sort this out. mr. honda: i'm not a lawyer, but let me ask the question then. if that were to be done for one phone at this one instance and creates a precedent, will that precedent require other
opportunities for law enforcement to access other technologies, other people's phones? director comey: i'm a lawyer, it definitely might. can i explain why i say that? because a judge will issue a decision in california interpreting the all writs act statute that wouldn't be binding on other judges, but there will be other phones, this is a huge issue for state and local law enforcement. there will be other phones and other judges will look to that to see if that's a similar circumstance. so there's no doubt about that. mr. honda: my followup response is, if it does create precedent, what's the impact on constitutional principles? director comey: the precedence will be created under the framework of our constitution. i mean a search warrant is an
exercise of authorities under the fourth amendment. the all writs act, which congress passed, when it passed the fourth amendment in 1789, is an exercise of the court's jurisdiction system of the great thing about this is, as i keep stressing this isn't us going and opening people's phones, it's us going to a constitution tall court asking for permission under the forty amendment to do something. so it would be a precedent in the sense that a court would look to it to see whether it was useful but the entire framework is under our rule of law. mr. honda: not to be argumentative but this is technology but it's still a constitutional question, it seems to me in terms of, you're arguing security versus privacy clash. december, we had pearl harbor. and there was a group of u.s. citizens in this country that
were incarcerated based upon security and privacy and national security and these folks were moved in total to other places out of their homes without due process. and when we rooked at it -- when we looked at it 40, 50 years later, with some hindsight, we realized that we reacted not judiciously, but we used the courts, the supreme courts also, justify some of the actions of government. so i'm just saying as one person who has seen this kind of thing happen, i'm very cautious about how we move forward. i understand the tragedy, i mentioned that, in times of tranquility our constitution is very rarely challenged. when terrorism and trauma and tragedies, you know, that's when
we need to be vigilant about, and thoughtful about it. and just think it through because we do not want to make a mistake as a nation that believes in the rule of law. mr. comey: i agree, mr. honda, that's why i think it's so important that this be a national conversation, the stakes are too high. it affects how we're going to live, how we're going to govern ourselves. i don't think it ought to be decide by one court case or another court case or the f.b.i. or some company. the american people ought to decide how do we want to be? mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. just to say that i agree that we should have a national conversation because in the past, these kinds of things have always been rushed into and thoughtful people need to get together with their own opinions and hash it out so i appreciate
that. mr. culberson: chairman rogers. mr. rogers: your request includes $783.5 million for f.b.i. headquarters construction. actually, $646 million is for the building and the other is or other things. that's a huge request and at the proposing u're significant cuts in f.b.i. operations. which i find a little bit troubling. tell me how important it is for a new building. director comey: very, very important. i will have failed if i leave the f.b.i. in the current crumbling infrastructure and failed the taxpayer, frankly. we're in a dozen or more facilities around washington, it's incredibly inefficient,
we're blowing all kinds of dough on leases we shouldn't be spending. we have outgrown headquarters, and the reason we have netting around the top floofers the .b.i. building is not to pro tect the -- us from the people, but to protect the people from the building falling on them. i know it's expensive but the vision is, build a building that i will be long gone from this earth and it is still functioning and efficient and safe for our folks. so i -- i'm a fairly stingy person when it comes to money, this is money that i believe is well spent. but to be good stewards, we're also squeezing ourselveses in other areas, as you said, to make sure that we're not only talking it, but we're walking he talk. mr. rogers: just as you earlier
oquently described to your employees that car is not yours, treat it like it belongs to the american public. we do that with dollars. we try to treat these dollars like they're our own, i guess. actually the request total is for $1.4 billion. about half of which is for g.s.a. and half, roughly for f.b.i. but the request also includes what i think is an unworkable immick to authorize d.o.j. working capital funds to be used for construction. how does -- how do you propose that to work? director comey: i don't know enough about that to give you an intelligent answer. i understand the money we asked for, i understand that g.s.a. intends to have whoever wins the
bid take our existing building in partial payment but i don't understand enough about the working capital, i'll get you a start answer but i can't answer it right now. mr. rogers: do you know what the intended use for the present building would be? director comey: i think the g.s.a.'s idea is to sell it to a developer, the developer who does our new building will get in partial payment the building that we have and will be allowed to develop it however local laws allow them to develop. but it will be using that object as partial payment. this is a g.s.a. deal, but that's my understanding how they're going to do it. mr. rogers: has there been a site picked for the new buildings? -- new building? director comey: no, it's narrowed to three possibles. the competing contractors will
offer proposals and then will pick the smartest site. two are in maryland, one by the metro, one by fedex field and one is in springfield. mr. rogers: mr. director, thank you for your service. mr. culberson: have you explored possibly hanging on to the property and leasing it? i know that's some of the most successful real estate developers that earned property -- that owned property in the 1840's and 1850's hung onto it. they lease it out like shell headquarters. most of those big buildings in downtown houston are on leased property, 99-year leases. hopefully you'll explore that as well. why sell that valuable piece of real estate, why not hang onto it and lease it out virtually in perpetuity and be like a little oil well for you, keep pumping
and pumping year after year. mrs. lowey. mrs. lowey: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to say again how much i appreciate and how fortunate we all are to have a person of your caliber in this position. i know you served as an outstanding role in new york and we're glad that the president was wise enough to bring you here to washington, d.c. thank you. and i just want to say as a result of my colleagues' comments on both sides of the aisle, i also appreciate your articulation of the challenge you are facing between privacy and security. i may have a different perspective than my colleagues -- my colleague, mr. honda, but i certainly appreciate the sincerity and thoughtfulness with which you presented your views. so i thank you. i want to continue a discussion briefly within my time of an issue i brought up in my opening
statement and that is, background checks. as we know under the law, background checks must be done within three days of a transaction to be allowed to proceed. regardless of whether a person is lawfully permitted to purchase a firearm. to meet the growing demand, your budget -- >> we will break away here. you can watch this online at c-span.org. the house coming back in for several votes, finishing up work on bills debated earlier. kindly take the chair. the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings the house is in the committee of the whole house for further consideration of h.r. 36 24 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to prevent fraudulent joinder. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier, a request for recorded vote on amendment number 2 offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania,
mr. cartwright had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 2 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report printed in house report 114-418. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 3624 and pursuant to house resolution 618, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment reported? if not, the question is on adoption in the committee of the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.
third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend title 28 united states code to prevent raudulent joinder. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- the house will be in order. the house will be in order. please remove your conversations from the aisles and the floor. for what purpose does gentlelady from new jersey seek recognition? mrs. watson coleman: i have a motion to commit at the desk. i'm opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the gentlelady from new jersey moves to recommit the bill -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. he house will be in order.
he house will be in order. the clerk: ms. watson coleman of new jersey moves to recommit the bill with instructions to report the same back to the house forth with with the following amendments. page 5, line 2, strike the closed quotation marks and the period follows. insert the following, 5. this section shall not apply to a case which the plaintiff seeks relief with the sexual abuse and exploitation of a minor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. watson coleman: this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill. if adopted the bill will proceed to final passage as amend dollars. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct.
the house will be in order. mrs. watson coleman: my amendment would simply ensure that those who have filed a suit in connection with sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor are exempt from the changes that this law makes. mr. speaker, this bill is an assault on the ability of every day hardworking americans to seek justice and despite the misleading title, this bill has nothing to do with fraud and will do nothing to prevent it. this is just one more step by my colleagues from the other side of the aisle to offer corporations every opportunity imaginable to take advantage of workers, consumers and patients. by making it easier to move cases to federal court, we make it easier -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will be in order. please remove your conversations from the floor and the aisles.
the house will be in order. the gentlelady may resume. mrs. watson coleman: by making it easier to move cases to federal court, we make it easier for big corporations to play the long game, waiting out plaintiffs with limited financial resources and limited capacity to travel from home for hearings and ability to sit through the significantly longer federal process. the current law has been around for centuries, based on the obvious logic that a state case belongs in a state court. the new burden that this would bill would place on the average american is simply outrageous. the least we can do is protect children who have been victimized by sexual assault. my amendment is simple. we ensure who allow those who filed lawsuits in connection with the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor to continue to operate under the completely operational and
already efficient system currently in place. most importantly, it would protect victims who have already experienced incredible, emotional and physical trauma from being dragged through a long and costly court process far from home just to benefit some multinational corporation out to maximize its profits. this isn't a hypothetical situation. in one case heard in washington state, plaintiffs were minors who were sexually exploited by in-state defendants and out of state defendant who advertised sexual services of the minors on the defendant's website. when the plaintiffs brought claims against the defendants for sexual exploitation, assault, battery and unjust enrichment, the out of state defendant attempted to move the case to federal court. federal courts rejected that defendant's arguments and the
case remained at the state level. but if this bill is allowed to pass, that would no longer be the case. mr. speaker, this bill is republic hence i believe. unfortunately, it's only the latest in a long line of efforts to put corporations beyond reproach and outside of any accountability. let's ensure young people who have been victimized don't experience any further mistreatment for the sake of share holders' profits. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i seek time in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: i would like to thank the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck, for bringing this outstanding legislation before the house. this is very common sense and
solves a practical problem and most importantly it protects the innocent. i want to quote him with regard to this motion to recommit. he says, as a prosecutor, i deeply respected all the rules we developed in this great country to protect the innocent. these are rules of general application such as rules protecting people's rights to have their side of the story told and rules protecting people from bias or inaccurate testimony. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. the house will come to order. the gentleman may resume. mr. goodlatte: i would have been afalled if any suggested that these general protections designed to protect innocent people from criminal liability should be suspended because the case was one of assault or battery or murder or somehow related to insurance. our country is rightly proud of its principles providing due process and equal protection.
but those concepts are meaningless if they are only selectively applied to some types of cases but not others. for the same reason, we should all be outraged at the suggestion that rules of fairness, designed to protect the innocent, should be suspended in the civil law because the case involves one particular subject or another. but that's exactly what this motion to recommit does. the problem with all of the arguments made by -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. the gentleman may resume. mr. good lat: the problem with all the arguments, mr. speaker, made by opponents of this bill is that those arguments rely on trapping completely innocent local people in lawsuits they don't deserve to be in. that's wrong and that's unfair. innocent local people and small businesses deserve protections from being dragged in lawsuits
they are really directed against other, larger parties, regard lofse the nature of the lawsuits against the other parties. in the end, this bill doesn't require much of trial lawyers. it tells trial lawyers not to sue local, innocent people and businesses just so they can further their own forum shopping strategies. it tells trial lawyers they need to have a plausible case before they can wrap up local innocent business people and individuals in costly and time-consuming lawsuits and it tells trial lawyers their lawsuits must be based on good faith. but apparently those very modest emands of stability -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. the gentleman may resume. mr. goodlatte: apparently those modest demands of civility and fairness are too much to ask according to opponents of this
bill who prefer to dilute it with irrelevancies and distractions. it's not often the house has the chance to protect innocent local people, abuses by trial lawyers and hold them to a good faith standard in lit fwation. all by passing a bill that's just a few pages long. but that's the opportunity the house has today. i urge all my colleagues to take the opportunity now, reject this motion to recommit, and in so doing, expand the opportunities of all local citizens and small businesses that would otherwise be smothered by costly and meritless lawsuits and pass this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mrs. watson coleman: i ask for a recorded vote.
the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20 this 15-minute vote on the motion to -- this five-minute vote on the notion recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill ifed or everyday, ordering the previous question on house resolution 619, and the adoption of house resolution 619 if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker: on this vote, the yeas are 180, the nays are 239, the motion is not domented. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the bill is passed. without objection -- >> mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 229, the nays are 189. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 419 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 92, house resolution 619. resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r.