And minority whip limited to five minutes. But in no event shall debate continue beyond 11 50 a. M. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Poe, for five minutes. Mr. Poe thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the president , quote, avoid the battle, complains, and misses opportunities. Those were the words of leon panetta president obamas former secretary of defense and c. I. A. Director in 2011. At the time panetta, along with military commanders and joint chiefs of staff, recommended that the United States leave 24,000 troops in iraq to prevent that country from falling apart and becoming chaos. According to panetta the administration was so eager to rid itself of iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve american influence in our interests. So the president ignored the advice of his own secretary of defense and top commanders and pooled troops out of iraq in 2011. The timing just before the 2012 president ial leaks to me appeared to be based on the politics of political convenience not our national interest. In any event, whats taking place today 2015 . Entered the islamic state, isis, isis took advantage of the power vacuum left by americans absence. So today isis is stronger than ever spreading its reign of terror throughout the reason. They practice religious genocide against people who dont agree with t they have redefined the term barbarian to an all new o low. They rape pillage, loot, behead and burn those in this isis war against the worlds people. Isis not only controls a massive amount of territory in the middle east, it also controls the minds of thousands of foreign fighters many from the United States. It is a sophisticated criminal enterprise that uses any and all ways to recruit fundraiser, and spread terror, including American Social media companies. Through American Companies like twitter, isis is instantly and freely spreading its cancer of islamic extremism to teenagers, recruiting them to join the jihad and launch attacks on the streets of america. Since the president announced his campaign against isis, we have seen embarrassing results. Even the president admitted that the United States did not have a complete strategy. The isis terror has been going on for over a year, and we dont have a plan to defeat them . This doesnt make a whole lot of sense. The United States must answer this question, is isis a National Security threat to us . If the answer is yes, then we must defeat them. And Congress Needs to weigh in on this and make this decision. If we decide that isis is a National Security threat then, of course, we need a strategy, a complete strategy. The administration plans so far plans so far is to train mercenaries to fight isis. However, just this week secretary of defense carter admitted that the United States has trained get this, 60 socalled modern siron rebels to fight isis. Just 60. The 500 Million Program that was supposed to fund 3000 fighters before the end of 2015 has trained 60. So if i do my math correctly, mr. Speaker, we are spending about 8 million per fighter right now. Thats abysmal. Thats no way to fight and win a war against terror. Also there are more americans fighting with isis rebels than we have trained to fight against isis. Meanwhile, in iraq, just 8,800 fighters have been trained to fight isis compared to the goal of 24,000. This administrations strategy to defeat isis seems to be in chaos. Even the kurds want to do their own fighting, and they have asked us for military support. Our allies want to send direct aid to the kurds, but the administration wont let them do that, they have to send it through baghdad for some reason. Its time for the administration to stop being indecisively weak and do the obvious. He needs to lead in this war against isis. It needs to listen to the commanders. The United States needs to act and have a plan to defeat this determined well financed enemy. It is a terrorist enterprise that is at war with us. And thats just the way it is. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. Blumenauer, for five minutes. Mr. Blumenauer last Month Congress dealt with a trade package that centered on trade Promotion Authority. Those actions, while important, were really just the beginning of a very long process. Many important provisions of the transpacific partnership, the t. P. P. , are still unresolved. Theres a meeting at the end of this month in hawaii where the finance ministers of the 12 countries come together in an attempt to resolve these final questions. As i pointed out in my last meeting with the president while i think trade Promotion Authority is important and worthy of support, that support does not imply support for the transpacific partnership. Indeed, because of the protections we built into the trade Promotion Authority, it sets an appropriately High Standard for approval. Everybody in america will have several be months to examine the promisal if an agreement is reached to see if it measures up before the treaty can even be voted on by congress. I am hopeful that we can use this time to clarify and refine areas. For example, the investor state dispute process. While the United States investor state protections were Public Health and consumers are stronger than for most countries and separate from the foreign investor state models that are being used by the United States chamber of commerce to promote the interest of big tobacco to undercut efforts to discourage smoking there is still room for us to improve and clarify the american model. And we should do so. Another important area deals with trade enforcement. Agreements that look good on paper if they are not enforceable or enforced are essentially meaningless. Its extremely important for the administration to demonstrate its commitment to enforcement. We are trying to help with legislation that i introduced in the house that we have been able to get in part of the Senate Package that would create a trade Enforcement Fund dedicated to help make sure agreements are enforced. But another step the administration could take immediately is to deal with disturbing actions in peru that seem to undercut commitments that were made in the existing peru Free Trade Agreement dealing with illegal logging. It appears that peru has backtracked on its commitments and that illegally harvested timber is finding its way into International Markets and into the United States. It would be a simple act for the administration to take that would demonstrate its commitment to strong enforcement by starting with peru right now. Another area that im working on deals with access to medicines. It appears that the trade Promotion Authority draft the t. P. P. Draft, excuse me, falls short on incentives for affordability and consumer protections. And that the trade Promotion Authority objective to, quote, ensure that medicine that agreements foster innovation and promote access to medication. We need some work here. The may 10 agreement that was struck in 2007, which i was pleased to participate in, struck the right balance creating incentives for innovation in pharmaceutical research and access to timely and affordable medicine for developing countries. This was achieved in part by requiring changes to provisions dealing with patent linkage where it looks like t. P. P. Is moving in the wrong direction. The t. P. P. Includes new provisions which, while not addressed in the may 10 agreement, are inconsistent with its spirit and intent of ensuring timely access to Affordable Medicines in developing countries. For example with biologic medicines, it appears the United States is seeking both patent linkage and 12 years of data exclusivity for all countries. The farm former would provide changes us in us law and latter would prevent us from changing our laws. The combination of these two would have enormous cost implications, both at home and abroad. These are examples where i am working to make sure the time agreement measures up to the criteria we have established in the trade Promotion Authority. I urge the administration and my colleagues to be clear about our intent and our expectations in order for any final agreement to be worthy of broad support. The speaker pro tempore the chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, mr. Mooney, for five minutes. Mr. Mooney thank you, mr. Speaker. Last week i had the pleasure of meeting with doug erwin. Doug is an extraordinary member of our West Virginia community who started a Charitable Organization called, backpack buddies. In the summer, backpack buddies gives meal supplements to children in elementary, middle, and high schools who received free or reduced lunch during the school year. Oftentimes the meal that they receive at school is the only food that they eat all day. Doug became concerned about what these children did for food during the summer. Thats when doug started backpack buddies. The last three years communities in my district, the great state of West Virginia, have come together to raise money to provide food to these children so they can get the extra help they need during the summer. Backpack buddies is serving now over 1,600 children in putnam boone, and kanaw counties this summer. I would like to thank doug, Business Leaders in our community, and the volunteers who help make backpack buddies possible. On a separate issue, mr. Speaker several weeks ago president obama sent two of his top cronies in his war on coal, interior secretary sally jewel, and office of Surface Mining director to my home state of West Virginia. The apparent purpose of their visit was to seek input for a new obama regulation that is estimated to kill 80,000 coal jobs. But the rule had already been submitted for final review. They are not interested in hearing from West Virginians about the impact of their policies. Instead, they are checking a box. It is clear that nothing will stop this president from trying to implement his radical environmental agenda. And i will ten to do everything in my power to fight back on behalf of all west vanians virginians. Thats why this year i introduced the stream act which will stop the president s antimining regulations. I also included a provision in the house budget resolution that calls for defunding that regulation and i will work with the appropriators to make sure it is not funded. I hope my colleagues in this chamber will join me in this fight. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. Schiff, for five minutes. Mr. Schiff mr. Speaker thins since the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, we have seen a massive wave of secret spending in our political system. It was over 100 million in dark, unregulated, and anonymous moneys spent in the 2014 Midterm Election cycle, and with the president ial race right around the corner, that number is expected to balloon to over 600 million. While the problem is easy to identify, the solution is far more difficult to achieve. Reluctantly i concluded its necessary to amend our constitution to address a long line of case law that began before Citizens United, and prevents the congress from meaningfully regulating campaign expenditures. The constitutional amendment must not only he overturn Citizens United, but the arizona Free Enterprise versus bennett decision which struck down an arizona law that allowed Public Financing of a candidate if their opponent exceeded certain spending limits. The amendment is simple. It would allow congress to set reasonable limits on expenditures and allow states to set up Public Financing for candidates if they choose to do so. I first ran for congress in 2000 in a campaign that turned out to be the most expensive in u. S. Histories and helpedpropel new Campaign Finance reform. It was this first inexperience that convinced me our elections have increasingly come to be polluted by ever increasing amounts of unregulated outside spending. Millions of dollars in soft money spending that avoided limits because of misguided legal distinctions between contributions to a candidate and independence expenditures in support of a candidate plagued that 2000 race and almost every major federal race since. I cosponsored the mccainfeingold act, which allowed for Public Financing of campaigns. The bill passed and for a brief window the Campaign Finance system became more transparent and limited. That was sadly short lived. With Citizens United the Supreme Court struck down decades of restrictions on Corporate Campaign spending and free corporations to spend unlimited funds to run campaign advertisements. The court has also allowed wealthy individuals and groups to spend with impunity with only a theoretical restriction that they do not coordinate with campaigns. But the reality is that the f. E. C. Has dismissed 29 cases in which super p. A. C. s were illegally coordinating. With a candidate to contend with super p. A. C. s with or soft money, as i was, the special interests are behind those expenditures. Candidates being drowned out in a tax paid for by dark money however, dont have that luxury. They exploit i. R. S. Regulations saying theyre social welfare nonprofits which you a lao them to operate taxexempt and raise Unlimited Money completely anonymously. Nothing about funneling millions of secret dollars to support campaigns can be construed to be in the interest of social welfare. Nothing. Social welfare nonprofits are supposed to limit their political activity, but i. R. S. Audits even of groups that spend vast amounts of their time and budget in support of candidates are extremely rare. Investigations into complaints of abuse can take years at which point an election will long be over, the damage done. The Supreme Court has overturned decades of legal precedent. The regulatory process is at a stand still and still we watch billions pour into campaigns and increasely anonymous fashion and so sadly were left with one option, a constitutional amendment that allows congress to set reasonable limits on both donations and expenditures and shines the light of day on both. I thank you and yield back. The speaker pro tempore the chair recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina, ms. Foxx, for five minutes. Ms. Foxx thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, i rise today to join my colleagues to express a deep concern about the ongoing negotiations with iran over the countrys nuclear capabilities. As many of my colleagues have noted on the floor of this house, preventing iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon is critical to securing peace in the region and protecting u. S. Interests including our close ally, israel. It was good to hear secretary kerrys recent commitment not quote, to shave anywhere at the margins in order to just get an agreement, end quote. And to work for an agreement that will pass scrutiny. However, media reports from the negotiations in vienna indicate that iran has tried to renegotiate the previously released framework and continues to demand further concessions from international negotiators. Among the latest demands from tehran is that all United Nations sanctions against the country including the ban on the import or export of conventional arms be lifted as part of any deal. Well, i have a response to that demand. Unacceptable. Lifting the arms embargo would serve only to further destabilize the middle east and accelerate irans army of shiite militias. The iranians have also sought to keep hidden irans current and previous efforts to gain Nuclear Weapons capability. How can the International Community know with certainty that iran is complying with an agreement to reduce significantly its enrichment activities if the full extent of these activities is kept secret . It defies logic that such a request should be made and makes far less sense for such a request to be given any serious consideration. Likewise, demands to limit iaea inspectors to select sites to install absurd bureaucratic processes to access to additional sites and to prohibit altogether inspections of socalled military sites should be fully rejected. Ultimately, its critical that any deal prevents iran from gang Nuclear Weapons capabilities and can ensure that inspectors can validate their negotiated terms. If iran cannot negotiate in good faith, then perhaps its time to leave the negotiating table altogether. I yield back. The speaker pro temp