until today just after the gentleman from utah mr chavis offered to withdraw his amendment and to work with mr wexler to address his concerns with the bill now it's my understanding that mr chavis and mr wexler worked in a bipartisan fashion and have crafted an amendment that mr chavis will be offering so i really want to commend this effort to work across the aisle to achieve better legislation and i would recognize mr chavis for five minutes i think we've come to something that hopefully everybody can agree to i know that certainly mr wexler and i are on the same page is a regards this issue the change really is reflected in change to the underlying bill where the european american commission shall include two members representing in the interests of italian americans and two members representing the interests of german americans it actually gives more flexibility to the president to the speaker and to the majority leader of the senate in consultation with the minority leader and the minority leader in the senate and so the amendment that you have before you just simply states that they are going to have expertise relating to the treatment of italian americans and professional expertise relating to the treatment of german americans and then does the same thing if you look on page the second page of the amendment here regarding the jewish commission  as long as they have professional expertise there was some concern too that i'm sure that perhaps this bill would lead to some sort of reparations i expressed  i appreciate it i do have some concerns about the fact that this that we are twelve trillion dollars in debt does have a price tag to come with it i am comfortable in terms of  as long as we're making sure that we're not moving towards the direction of reparations i would feel comfortable if we were able to support the member that i offer that we're not moving towards reparations with the understanding and concern that given a time of such severe that this bill is simply an authorization not an appropriation that i would feel comfortable with the bill moving forward and with that i'll yield back to the gentleman yield back are there further  handed a copy of the letter from mr wexler that's now been introduced into the record i think that this amendment that has been offered by mr chavis is a constructive amendment and it's one that will move towards a more objective evaluation of history and the circumstances that surround these events that are the subject of the underlying bill i would ask mr chavis if he would yield to a question and and i and that question would be as i quickly scan this amendment is there anything in the amendment that addresses the reparations issue or does it constrain repr a anyway that you can see mr davidson and you'll know they've been specifically itself does not address reparation nor does it have any language specific to that but what i did you know i am asking for the you know is it simply the letter for from mr wexler which i'll let you draw your own conclusions on  letter from mr wexler i would ask if you find anything in there that would commit him to opposing reparation should they materialize at any point in this process and ideals i guess my my answer to you have to you claim my time in it and i appreciate the gentleman's analysis and i and i agree with that analysis as well that as i read the language in the letter and first i want to make it clear i do support this amendment i think it's a constructive amendment and we have the situation w have not a letter that accompanies the amendment and as far as subject matter is concerned but it adds to the understanding of some of the intent of the sponsors of the legislation and as i read through this letter the operative language that i read as i understand that this is for m i understand that you are also concerned about the potential of h r fourteen twenty five to lead to reparations i want to clarify my intentions h r fourteen twenty five does not in any way call for reparations and i do not expect that congress would take up a second reparations bill after the commission completes its work which is what would be required for any reparations to be made i don't disagree with any of that language except as i want to clarify my intentions i don't think this letter actually clarifie the balance of my time gentleman yield back the question is on the amendment all in favor of the males they are opposed will say no in the opinion of the chair the eyes have it the eyes have it and proportion if there are a lot of amendments i would ask whether the gentleman could consider whether some of them could be considered on bond and so that we might meet our deadline with the general eighty consider monetary compensation will be paid out under h r four hundred twenty five or subsequent legislation resulting from the report of the european american commission that would result from this legislation current u s taxpayers who were not even alive during world war two should not have to foot the bill for actions of former generations simply because some individuals felt victimized by those actions i fail to see how reparations make up for any perceived mistreatment by the u s government so let's be clear about the point of this bill proponents claim that the bill is about having their story heard and having the us government acknowledge the treatment they or their family members receive they claim this is not about reparations it's true with the witnesses we heard in the hearing if it is not by amendment will pass but if it is about reparations then we'll see the votes emerge that oppose my amendment if it is not if it is one thing it is one thing to require a commission to investigate and report on u s government activities and quite another to expect us taxpayers to hand over perhaps millions of dollars to the people who felt that their unjust injustices were done to them and so this is this is really is the core of this issue i don't think any of us objects to take no luck and building a record of the factual history in fact before the hearings as i understood their presentation to us during the hearings was they wanted to build a record in the hearing we help build a record in the hearings we opened up the records for our those well as witnesses to revise and extend and to introduce into the record by any member of congress material that they thought was important to the subject matter that was before this congress of all the important things we have going on in this congress contemporary issues and i think there's a reason why there are some empty chairs here it's hard to believe because we have important contemporary issues before this congress and we're now looking back two or three generations and we have this concern that a generation or so from now they may be compelled to pay the or even two or three generations  now they may be compelled to pay the interest on a national debt that would include reparations for a generation that most of which is passed and so on i am opposed to reparations that's at the central core of my objection to this process and proceeding is not the truth i want the truth to come out in the record and i think that we should recognize the things that we do well in the past and we should also seek to improve the things we don't do well as a nation in the past and seems that there's a unanimous agreement that this legislation is not about reparations i think we'll find out as this amendment goes to passage so i urge the adoption of the amendment that simply clarifies that no part of this legislation will lead to reparations nor will any successive legislation that would flow from it lead to reparations that's not the intent of this congress that  world reparations it is our intent to take a look at the history so i urge adoption of my amendment and i go back to balance of my time gentleman yield back and i recognize myself you know opposition to the amendment but let me explain why  first let me thank representative chase it for sitting down with the author of the bill our colleague on the full committee mr wexler to explore his amendment but also raising the issue of reparations which would the congress would then have to do a separate bill to provide for reparations and i'll tell you this it's not going to happen but for a variety of reasons i think there is an interest in not constraining the review faith understand that even if this amendment were to be included in the bill to be passed we could not constrain a future congress from doing something different i think it's better to remain silent on know review the remarks made by the chair of the opposition is for a variety of reasons which are really no more clear to me than the statement i made mr wexler letter that said that i want to clarify my intentions and the opposition is for a variety of reasons i think neither one of those are actually clarified in opposition to this amendment which stipulates what i'm hearing is the intent of this panel that  sides are bipartisan remarks that say there is no intention to go forward with reparation a fact of vote against my amendment is a vote against the position that some will presume  the letter the position of the letter taken that is written by mr mr wexler and with the idea that we cannot constrain a future congress that is true we can't direct the future to be elected congress on whether they will spend money or where they will not  will be interpreting the commission will interpret this commission is formed the commission military brit and future congresses will interpret the intent of this panel and if this panel votes down this amendment which is i believe consistent with the positions of democrats and republicans on this panel then the implicit message is that we are for reparations which we are not and the language in my amendment says that that for the purposes of this act appropriate remedies which is a quote from the bill shall not include any monetary compensation no no monetary compensation can be considered under appropriate remedies by the commission that helps direct the commission don't waste your time making recommendations on reparations just focus on the history which is the intent of all people that are advocating for this so again if this amendment is voted down i think the implicit message that will be interpreted by the commission by the press which influences a lot of people and members in this congress excellent point that this is not this is not precluding the commission from doing their job but our job is to in the form of legislation set out the guidelines for what that objective is and if the objective clearly is not to have reparations that is not something that would be in the realm of what they consider that and they can come up with something more consistent with the spirit and recognized out of order for statement thank you madam chair i have a number of other amendments that are prepared and i believe most of them are well thought out and constructive to the bill by after this vote and i and i think it needs to be clear that the majority has voted down an amendment that would make it clear that the commission is not about reparations and i will let that message stand and i will oppose the bill and constituted it would be my intent to provide the commission a copy of mr wexler's bill and senator feingold's statement so that they could incorporate that direction in their deliberations the question is will call the rol king mr king votes no mr harper nine one day and the the bill a majority having voted in favor the building h r four hundred twenty five is ordered reported favorably to the full committee without objection t bill will be reported the bill of full committee in the form of a single member in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amended adopted here today and without objection the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes for what purposes are generally accepted to be  already that spoke about determining information on slavery in united states though i will not address the issue here i hope that in other committees will have the opportunity to move forward on explaining and finding out all of the facts around injustices that have occurred in the united states and around european americans european latin america's interest refugees and world war two i think it is important for us to get information about all these aspects of american and international history with that laid back and all business having been concluded before the subcommittee i thank the members for their participation i wish that everyone has a very productive of time at home with their constituents this