tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN April 13, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
minutes of the program here because the u.s. house is about to gavel in to begin their legislative day. initial work will get under way on two bills dealing with the financial services industry. another bill that would prohibit the federal communications commission from regulating internet rates. house about to gavel in live here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, the reverend steve tomlinson, st. stevens catholic church, exeter, nebraska. the chaplain: would you bow your heads in prayer. good and gracious god, we come before you filled with gratitude of the many blessings you have bestowed upon us humbly. we ask your forgiveness for when we have chosen the wrong path. we beseech your mercy, o lord, upon our nation. rain down fire from heaven, not
a fire of wrath or destruction, but a holy fire of love. the fire of mercy, a fire of wisdom that we may love as you love. pour it -- pour into this chamber today a spirit of civility a freshness of renewal, and a bountiful grace of new ideas. bless these legislature -- legislators, their family, their staff and abundantly bless all those they represent. may the work of this chamber be guided by your divine hands. hear us, o lord, for i ask this in the name and through the merits of jesus christ, thy son and our savior, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance welcome led by the gentlewoman from california, ms. hahn.
ms. hahn: will our guests join us as we say the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith, is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, i rise to welcome father steve tom lisson and thank him for serving as our guest chaplain today. he serves chaplain for both the army -- nebraska army national guard as well as the f.b.i., providing support to hundreds of our service men and women, first responders, law enforcement and their families. ordained in the catholic diocese of lincoln, he pastors st. stevens church in nebraska and another in milligan, nebraska. he didn't enter the priesthood
until his 30's that led him to the seminary. he was ordained a priest at age 41. it is also important to note that he's a proud cornhusker, having attended the university of nebraska at lincoln. i'm proud to welcome him to the united states house of representatives. i yield back. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will entertain up to 15 further one-minute requests on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to commend several school districts in the pennsylvania's fifth congressional district in promoting healthy lifestyles for their students, staff and residents. in 2015, more than 2,200 people participated in the nutrition habit challenge which was established three years ago by one-on-one fitness, a local fitness consulting company, in
order to inspire people across the country to make better -- across the county to make better choices for their diet and exercise habits. each year the winning school district is picked based on the number of successful participants, invited by the district's total number of students. those who participate must commit to changing a nutritional behavior over the course of one month. this year the -- my alma mater won $500 through the competition. district officials say families participating in the challenge cut soda from their diet and creased consumption -- water consumption. i thank them for participating in this unique challenge. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. hahn: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlady is recognized for one minute. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the memory of my dear friend and
former los angeles city counselman bill rosendal, who lost his battle to cancer. in 2015, bill became the first openly gay man to be elected to the los angeles security council. i remember how brave he was in the face of adversity. he left behind a legacy of fighting for h.i.v. and aids research and an end to discrimination. bill was one of the most selfless and kind-hearted individuals i have ever known. that heart made him an incredible advocate and a beloved champion for the people he represented. i visited bill recently in hospice and had a chance to hold his hand and tell him stories about when we served together on the security council in los angeles. i will never fore -- the city council in los angeles. i will never forget his gregarious laugh that never failed to put a smile on his face. i will cherish his friendship and miss him dearly.
may he rest in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. talk to any small business owner and they'll tell you how challenging it is to operate in this environment. mr. walberg: heavy-handed regulations, confusing paperwork requirements, a complex and unfair tax code. i hear it all the time as i travel michigan's seventh district, hold listening sessions and tour local shops and manufacturing facilities. that's why i'm introducing the main street jobs and opportunity act. to grow a healthy economy, we need to foster policies that help small businesses do what they do best, bring their products to market and hire new workers in the community. it's time for big government to stop squeezing the small family farmer in jackson county, the local diner in eaton county and the manufacturer in monroe
county. let's focus on helping main street. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. higgins: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, i rise in honor of the 65th infantry regimen, a segregated as the bore nown rink ears. even -- borinquineers. the soldiers sacrificed everything for a country that had not yet embraced the rights of hispanic americans, a shame for our country but a show of incredible loyalty and service by those who served. today, the house and senate leaders will present a congressional gold medal in honor of the 65th infantry region meant. in attendance is chairman of the hispanic heritage council of western new york. i thank kaz and the others who
worked so hard to make sure that americans will never forget the 65th infantry region meant. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek regular anything? >> -- recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> as we know by law, congress must emact a -- enact a budget resolution by friday. yet, after months of promising to return to so-called regular order, speaker ryan has failed to bring a budget to the floor of this house for us to act upon. mr. kilmer: i don't know about you but my constituents, the people i work for, are tired of a do-nothing congress -- mr. kildee: the republican majority has failed to pass a budget resolution. we need a resolution that supports working families, a budget that that supports growing the economy in this
country. but instead of that, the republicans have decided not a pass a budget at all. under this republican majority, rather than working with those of us on this side of the aisle and find some common ground around a budget resolution, the majority has been held hostage to the most extreme voices within their conference, the tea party members, and because they want to cut medicare, change it in ways that i think would be destructive to our economy, they can't bring a budget to the floor of the house of representatives. we need to do our job. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i stand here as a member of congress but years before that i was a mother and a grandmother and i still am.
it's from all of these perspectives that i am deeply disturbed by recent tests in illinois that show a high contamination of lead. even more alarming is that 5% of our children tested have elevated levels in their small bodies. if this happened to one of my kids, i can tell you i would ask for immediate answers and immediate action. mrs. bustos: and these families and children deserve no less. i urged them to apply for the low interest federal loans to replace these lead pipes that go to 4,700 homes in the city in addition to that, i support legislation that would call for improved reporting, testing and monitoring of lead levels. as a congresswoman, as a mom, as a grandma, i say to all responsible here -- it is time, it is past time, no more excuses, no more delays. we need a long-term solution to
a long-term problem, and i yield my time back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota eek recognition? mr. cramer: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the university of north dakota is the state's largest and oldest university in nearly 15,000 students 225 fields of study with 3,000 courses and 84 graduate education programs. u.n.d. has a reputation for research and scholarship in the health sciences and energy and the environment, in aerospace and entrepreneurship. oh, yeah, and in hockey. in fact, mr. speaker, last saturday, in tampa, florida, the university of north dakota men's hockey team won its eighth ncaa championship by defeating their opponent five goals to one. u.n.d. hockey is legendary in the ncaa with 22 frozen four appearances to go along with their eight national championships.
congratulations to coach bradberry, to president ed schaefer, the entire outstanding team of student athletes and former member of the house of representatives, mark kennedy, for whom my advice won't screw this thing up and the entire u.n.d. family on their latest accomplishments and thank you for your great season and your tremendous example of excellence. as you raise another ncaa trophy, you also raise the bar for all those who follow. that's a really good thing, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut eek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. del bean: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to thank team 26, some of whom are here in the gallery with us today, for their courageous efforts to
continue the call for this house and this body to take responsible action to end the scourge of gun violence in this country. ms. delbene: this courageous group of writers, 26 men and women and mothers and fathers and high school students and veterans rode to washington to renew the call for all victims -- ms. esty: this is their fourth year. this year, they bring with them petitions signed by nearly 40,000 americans demanding that we in congress do our job by ensuring that all our students are safe and that we allow our college campuses to be gun-free zones. it is my privilege to present this petition to the entire house and to thank team 26 for their courageous efforts and for their relentless efforts to make sure that we in congress do our job. team 26 rides to bring a message of hope and peace and
love. it is time for this house to respond to their call for auction with action of our own. thank you very much and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'd like today to recognize veterans legal institute, an organization that resides right in the middle of my district, serving our veterans in orange county, california, since 2014. it's a nonprofit organization and it provides pro bono legal assistance to our veterans on a myriad of issues. for example, on some of the education issues going on, using their g.i. bill, in housing because we have so many of our veterans, as you know, that are homeless. with respect to health care,
getting into those v.a. hospitals and to the agencies. and, of course, with respect to employment. the organization's ongoing effort to become an important factor in helping us to bring veterans along and to ensure that they are an integral part of our community. veterans legal institute is committed to providing our everyday heroes with the resources and the support that they deserve. and i believe that we must do our part by supporting organizations such as veterans legal institute so they can effectively serve this community. thank you and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii seek recognition? without objection the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> today i rise to recognize a woman of extraordinary talent and devotion, stephanie mue, the
hawaii state teacher of the year. stephanie is currently an elementary schoolteacher but her career has taken her all across the globe, to the u.s. mainland, to thailand, japan, and india. she came to teaching because she was touched by the struggles of at-risk youth and wanted a job in which she could plant seeds for successful, productive and peaceful life. for nearly 20 years as a teacher she's done just that for countless students and her service doesn't stop there. mr. ta chi: stephanie also vol -- mr. takai: stephanie also olunteer. thank you, stephanie, for sharing your life with our students. i wish you best of luck in the
final selection for national teacher of the year. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? without objection the gentlelady s recognized for one minute. mrs. wilson: mr. speaker, today is wear something read wednesday to bring back our girls this week marks the second anniversary of the april 14, 2014, kidnapping of the nigerian schoolgirls, 7350 days this week and next, members of congress will join us in commemorating the tragic event that captured the world's attention and calling for increased action to defeat boe co-ha ram, the world's deadliest terrorist organization. members of congress, republicans and democrats, men and women
have all galvanized behind this cause. house leadershipping including house minority leader nancy pelosi and conference chair cathy mcmorris rodgers have joined nuss wearing something red on wednesdays to bring attention to this cause. i urge my colleagues and everyone to continue to lend their voices to this cause and join us. we should never forget. we must never forget the nigerian girls. for almost two years we have tweeted to raise awareness to this issue in congress and we will continue to tweet, tweet, tweet. #bringbackourgirls. tweet every day. tweet, tweet, tweet. #bringbackourgirls. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
mr. polis: households across america, people sit around the kitchen table, trying to make the hard choices, should they send the kid to summer camp, can they afford to go out to dinner more often, can they afford a trip. i was in the private sector, businesses have those discussions, we'd discuss where we were going to invest. but aparaphernalialy for the republicans they say our country shouldn't have a budget. the time is running short in which the republicans can present an pass a budget for the united states of america. shouldn't america have a budget just as it's had in the past? just as families across our country have have? just as businesses have? what is it that they're trying to hide? can they not make the numbers match without privatizing social security and medicare? are they trying to hide huge tax increases for the middle class? we'll never know unless the public pressure is so great that the republicans feel that they have to present a responsible budget before our body.
i hope we see it soon. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house the following communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2h of rule of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate :20 ril 13, 2015, at 9 a.m.ing, that the senate passed senate 2123, sinned -- signed sincerely karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 192, an act to re-authorize the older americans act of 1965 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules i call
up house resolution 672 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 106, house resolution 672. resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2b of rule xviii, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2666, to prohibit the federal communications commission from regulating the rates charged for broadband internet access service. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate
vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or ithout instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. >> i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for purposes of debate only, mr. speaker, i further ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: house resolution 672 provides for consideration of h.r. 2666, the no rate regulation of broadband internet access act.
the rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and minority of the energy and commerce committee. the committee on rules made in order three amendments that were submitted to the committee, all three of which were submitted by the minority. finally, the rule affords the minority the customary motion to recommit, a final opportunity to amend the legislation should the minority choose to exercise that option. h.r. 2666, the no rate regulation of broadband internet access act, was introduced by mr. kinzinger, a member of the energy and commerce committee to dress the issue of an out of control, independent agency, the federal communications commission, or the f.c.c. the bill is targeted and does one thing only. it prohibits the federal communications commission from regulating the rates charged for broadband internet access. in february of 2015, the federal
communications commission voted on a party line vote to adopt rules that reclassified broadband internet access as a title 2 telecommunications service, reversing their previously stated position that they would not reclassify the internet under title 2 and in fact afterwards the president himself interjected into the debate and demanded that the commission reconsider and that they do so. the rules prevent blocking and paid prioritization of the internet. this he re-classification poses a serious risk for rates charged by providers for internet service, a move that's never before been taken by the government. under the federal communications commission unprecedented use of a 100-year-old statute to regulate the internet under its, and i'm quoting here, net
neutrality rule, close quote, they gave themselveses the thrt to regulate the rates that internet service providers charge to consumers for service. in response to this power grab by the commission, the energy and commerce committee held oversight hearings and that resulted in the drafting and pass odge of the legislation before the house this week. which is intended to prevent the federal communications commission from using reclassification of broadband internet service to engage in rate regulation. whether that be directly through tariffing or indirectly through enforcement actions. rate regulation or even the threat of rate regulation out of the federal communications commission creates massive uncertainty for internet service providers. because of this, internet service providers could slow or stop altogether the investment and will be less likely to offer specialized or unique pricing offers to their customers. as the federal communications
commission consolidates more and more power to regulate the internet, and make no mistake the federal communications commission is very eager to regulate the internet, providers will have fewer and fewer avenues for providing consumer service plans and packages. the chairman of the commal communications commission, tom wheeler, and president obama, have said net neutrality rules wouldn't result in f.c.c. regulating rates. yet less than two years after the rule was adopted, during an energy and commerce committee, chairman wheeler stated that the f.c.c. should and will have the authority to regulate broadband rates under these new rules. like all government bureaucrats, like all government agency the federal communication commission can't help itself. it sees an unregulated space, the internet, and can't allow it to go on without government
control. under net neutrality the federal government will have the ability to control the internet. let me say that again. under net neutrality, the federal government will have the ability to control the internet. even if this current federal communications commission chooses not to regulate the rates charged, the commission's net neutrality rules permit future f.c.c. commissioners from doing exactly that. these rules from the federal communication commission have the potential to cost well north of 43,000 jobs according to a recent study commissioned by the united states telecom association. the bill before us this week will take a step toward protecting inter-- the internet industry from those job losses. i urge my colleagues to support today's rule and support the underlying legislation to protect consumers from an out of control federal bureaucracy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman
for yielding me the 30 minutes, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: we have just days before the legally mandated budget deadline and yet instead of debate yurg budget, mr. speaker, my budget, mr. speaker, anybody's budget, mr. speaker, instead we're debating whether to codify existing f.c.c. policy. there is limited time to provide a budget for our country. households across our country have budgets. businesses have budgets, but unless there's an announced change to the schedule in bringing congress to work on friday and saturday and rules committee convening today or tomorrow, it seems like congress will miss the deadline for the budget and perhaps never produce a budget. look, folks on the other side will say, there's been years democrats didn't produce a budget, that's true. but republicans ran to take over this body saying we're going to do better, we're going to produce a budget. guess what, republicans have the
chance, and not even a vote on the budget. i'm going to offer later in this debate a motion to rede-feet the previous question and if that passes, mr. speaker, i'll be able to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the budget resolution. i hope it does. i hope there's enough democrats and republicans in this chamber who are outraged by the failure of the republican leadership to allow the republican and democratic members of this body to present and vote on their budgets. we've historically had a very open process around budgets. there's usually five, six budgets that come before the house and we try to get to one that passes. there's been years where i think they have a king of the hill process and whichever one gets the most votes can become the budget. but it looks like rather than any of those debates, or give members who have thoughtfully been preparing budgets from the republican study group, from the progressive democrat coalition, the chance to present their budgets along with the republican and democratic mobes of the budget committee, i think
the republicans are saying we don't want to have those tough decisions about where to cut, where to tax. we'd rather just predend like our country is in good fiscal order and spend the day discussing codifying f.c.c. policy rather than discussing what the american people sent us here to do, how to balance the budge, restore fiscal stability and pass a budget. . there is another missed opportunity here today. when talking about broadband, if that's what we're going to talk about, in districts like mine in colorado we have communities that simply don't have reasonable access to the internet. i talked to constituents in evergreen, in connor, in grand canyon every day, rapidly growing communities where people only have access to peds that were morrell vant -- speeds that were more relevant to the 20th century instead of the 21st century. and a chrome book computer, a
computer science teacher didn't have high speed access from his own home. access to broadband is essential for our economy, particularly our rural economy, like those in my district. it's essential for the education of our kids, for a vibrant private sector, for civil society and democracy. while the f.c.c. and the department of commerce have some tools in place, there's not nearly the tools they need or the resources to make our nation competitive coast to coast by making sure that every american has access to broadband. look, bills that try to codify regulations certainly have their place. i would argue it's probably not when we're 48 hours from reaching a budget deadline, but i want to make sure even if we are going to spend time codifying f.c.c. policy that we have the more important discussion about how we can make sure that broadband access is available to our rural communities, such as the ones that i represent. look, you know, democrats and republicans larningly agree on some of the goals -- largely agree on some of the goals of
this bill. i think there is a missed opportunity of a bipartisan version that could have passed on suspension. there are a number of amendments under consideration. i'm hoping that some of the consumer protection will be in that. the broad picture, mr. speaker, we are two days away from congress' own deadline of passing bauget with no budget in sight -- a budget with no budget in sight. if we defeat the previous question, we can move to look at the budget. i call upon my colleagues to do that. if i'm hopeful we can look at broadband after this deadline passes i'm hopeful to look at that and we move in the debudget debate, we'll be happy to resume this debate next week. i haven't seen any particular reason we have to try to cram in codifying f.c.c. regulations around braubd -- broadband in the 48 hours before our budget expires. let's get back to talking about the budget. it's never easy.
the republicans certainly talked about how they want the country to have a budget. well, the country is not going to have a budget unless congress gets work debating it and passing it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i'll reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for three minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding. i rise to oppose the rule on this legislation, not necessarily because this is a bad bill. i do think it's a vague solution in search of a nonexistent problem, but i oppose the rule for another reason and that is because i thought that since we were going to bring this bill to the floor anyway, even though it's unnecessary, even though chairman wheeler of the f.c.c. has said that the f.c.c. does not intent to regulate rates on broadband, i thought maybe i'd try to accomplish something productive and offer an amendment to solve a real problem that the american
people are seeing in front of them every day right now and that is the problem of television ads, political ads that are not truly eye department find as to their source -- identified as to their source. under section 317 of the communications act of 1934, the f.c.c. requires broadcasters to identify or put on the ad the true identity of the people running the ad. and unfortunately -- i mean, this makes a lot of sense. the idea is when you see somebody trying to influence your vote or influence your attitude about a particular public issue that you should understand who is actually trying to influence you. but because of dramatic changes in the way campaign laws are implemented and because of the citizens united supreme court decision, what's happened is that we now have ads run by organizations like americans for kittens and puppies and that doesn't do the american
voter, the american consumer any good. they don't understand who's actually paying. so what my amendment would have done, had it been allowed in order by the rules committee, would have required the -- would have basically restated the law that exists in saying the f.c.c. should regulate this -- these ads by requiring the true identity. and right now they are relying on a 1979 staff interpretation of true identity, and they're saying, well, if the sponsor -- we need to put the sponsor of the ad on the ad, but the onsor of the ad, again, is a nebulous, vague title organization who nobody knows who they are. what we have to say you have to put on the ad who is really paying for it. for instance, if you have an ad in support of sugared soft drinks and it was being paid for by coca-cola, under this interpretation you could put the ad agency that actually put the ad on the air and nobody would know that coca-cola was actually paying for it.
the people, again, are seeing this every day on their television screens right now, and it is -- these laws and interpretations have resulted in endless sums of anonymous money coming into the system trying to influence the outcomes of our elections. that's not what congress intended, and despite having the authority to do it, the f.c.c. has refused to take action to close this loophole. my amendment would have restated the original congressional intent and would send a message to the f.c.c. that it's time to act. you know, this amendment would have been jermaine, it would have been within the -- germane, it would have been within the rules of the body and it is supported by -- mr. polis: i yield 30 seconds. mr. yarmuth: and more importantly, it would have been supported by the vast majority of americans, republicans, democrats, independents who want us to reform our campaign finance system so that it's on the up and up so people who understand who's trying to influence them and also trying to get the -- end the influence of big money in politics. so i wish that the rules
committee had made that amendment in order. they didn't so i will oppose the rule and urge my colleagues to do so. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, may i inquire of the gentleman from colorado how many additional speakers he has? mr. polis: i'm prepared to close. mr. burgess: in which i'll reserve to allow the gentleman to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the republican budget resolution and allow for consideration of alternative budget proposals under a similar process to that which we've used every year in recent history. it's truly time for the republicans to stop the partisan game and finally consider a budget before this friday's legally mandated deadline. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
mr. polis: look -- and mr. speaker, americans get it. households have to balance their budget. businesses have to balance their budget. not talking about it and putting your head in the sand is only a recipe for increased debt and increased liability for future generations of americans. the fact that we're spending $400 billion, $500 billion more than we're taking in -- of course we might not know about that until the next year if we don't have a budget -- the fact we have enormous unfunded liabilities in medicare and social security doesn't go away just because republicans ignore the topic and refuse to have a debate on balancing our budget. i'm proud to sponsor -- i'm proud to sponsor a balanced budget amendment. i think by working together, democrats and republicans can restore fiscal responsibility to our nation. how can we do it? well, i'll tell you how we can't do it.
we can't do it by 48 hours from the deadline to pass a budget, be discussing obscure bills to codify f.c.c. regulations with our valuable floor time. it starts with an honest discussion. it starts with democrats and republicans offering their budgets. i've been proud in the past to support bipartisan budgets that have come to this body. i supported and opposed some of the democratic budgets that my colleagues have offered, but we have to have that discussion on the floor. the work doesn't do itself, and the problem doesn't go away when republicans choose to ignore it. i wish our budget deficit was as easy to solve as simply ignoring it. wouldn't that be convenient if we could simply ignore the budget deficit and it go away? wouldn't it be easy to ignore the national debt and go away? wouldn't it be convenient if we could ignore the damage to agencies that an indiscriminant sequester has caused and would
simply go away? i like that line of thinking, mr. speaker. unfortunately, it's completely unrealistic. the american people realizes it's completely unrealistic, and that's why when america looks to congress and say we have these discussions in our household about our budget, businesses have discussions, why can't you, mr. speaker, why can't you? that's the reason the congressional approval rating is so low. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule and the underlying bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, back in the late 1990's in the middle of what was called the dot-com boom, my predecessor, the then majority leader of the house of representatives, richard army, came and spoke to the -- armey, came and spoke to the dallas chamber of commerce and the purpose of that discussion today was to talk
about the dot-com boom that the economy was experiencing. and he confessed that the ternet was the gosh darndest thing and he cautioned us. as business leaders that day he cautioned us. he said, look, when the government doesn't understand something, the first thing it will want to do is regulate it and the next thing it will want to do is tax it and you will then have effectively killed it. mr. speaker, it wasn't an accident that i used in the opening statement the language that under the proposed rules from the f.c.c. the federal government will have the ability to control the internet. that is a significant and important fact. if you allow the federal government to control the internet you will have effectively damaged the promise of the internet that it will no longer function for its citizens the way it was intended to function as a free
and open process. today's rule provides for consideration of a bill to rein in the federal government that is all too eager to regulate every aspect of our lives. h.r. 2666 will protect the internet from government regulation, allow it to continue to thrive without interference. i want to thank mr. kinzer for his work on -- mr. kinzinger for his work on this legislation. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill. with that i'll yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i call up house resolution 671 and ask for its immediate consideration. the clerk: house resolution 671. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 3340, to place the financial stability oversight council and the office of financial research under the regular appropriations process, to provide for certain quarterly reporting and public notice and comment requirements for the office of financial research, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are aived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on financial services now printed in the bill shall be
considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on inancial services. two, the further amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the member designated in the report, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. and three, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2. upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill , h.r. 3791, to raise the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank holding company policy statement, and for other purposes.
all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. two, the amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the member designated in the report, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. and three, one motion to recommit with or without nstructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one hour.
>> mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, pend chg i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on tuesday the rules committee met and reported a rule for house resolution 3340, the fsoc reform act and house resolution 3791, house resolution 671 the rule provides a structured rule for both bills. mr. stivers: it provides for one hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the financial services committee, additionally it provides for consideration of one amendment to each bill. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the resolution and the underlying legislation.
the dodd-frank act created the financial stability oversight council, dedicated to identifying threats to the stability of the american financial system. the fsoc is supported in that mission by the office of financial research, which was also created in dodd-frank. the o.f.r. is armed with subpoena power to compel vast amounts of nonpublic, sensitive information from institutions across the financial system. the o.f.r. feeds this data to the fsoc which is empowered to designate banks as well as nonbank institutions as systemically important financial sifis.tions or this increases regulatory burdens faced by these institutions and has far-reaching effects in the financial system. it trickles down to customers, resulting in higher borrowing costs that may stop americans from realizing their dreams of
home ownership, purchasing a car or pursuing higher education or other goals. but despite the vast power that the fsoc and o.f.r. have, neither organization is subject to the annual appropriations process. the o.f.r. is fund through the an assessment on banks that pays for the fsoc through these funds. as such, the fsoc is insulated from the transparency and accountability that congress would give to normal organizations and that happens by virtue of this self-funding mechanism. and this is effectively shielded the fsoc from any congressional oversight. the fsoc reform act would simply fix those problems. it does not reduce the budget of the fsoc or the o.f.r. but would require that they be under annual appropriations. it would also require occasional reports to congress on their expenses, objectives and
performance measures. congressional approval of the fsoc budget would encourage transparency with regard to the fsoc methodology or designating sifis and make it clear what their objectives are and what they see as concerns for our fbsrble system. i believe this bill will actually increase the transparency of the process, but it will also make sure we look out for the financial security of the american financial system. the bill also requires the fsoc to engage in public notice and comment periods before issuing any new rules and regulations. these changes will put the fsoc in line with other agencies that have to create public notice and have a public comment period before they provide new rules and regulations. i'd like to thank the sponsor of h.r. 3340, representative tom eher of minnesota for -- emerit
of minnesota for introduce -- emer of minnesota for introducing this. other measure -- the other measure for consideration under the rule is h.r. 3791, a bill sponsored by representative mia love of utah. last year congress passed and the president signed legislation provide regular leaf for community banks by increasing the federal reserve's small bank holding company policy statement threshold to include small bank holding companies with up to $1 billion of consolidated assets. this was in response to the small banks' difficulty in accessing capital as a result of significant changes in the regular willer to landscape. this provides further relief by expanding the statement by including small bank -- by providing small banks and other holding companies with up to $5 billion in consolidated assets.
it will provide needed relief for banks and small holding companies. it matches the threshold offered in the last congress by the current ranking member of the senate banking committee, my democrat sherrod brown who did that in senate resolution 98. this should not be controversial. it's bipartisan. democrats and republicans have been for this. since the second quarter of 2010, around the time that dodd -- around the time the dodd frank act passed by congress, community banks' share of the u.s. commercial banking assets has declined at a rate almost double that experience between 2006 and 2010. what's happening in our financial system is the big are getting bigger and the small are disappearing. that's why this is important to give regulatory relief to some smaller community banks that are out caught in the middle. according to the fdic there were more than 18,000 banks in 1980
compared to just 6,400 in the first quarter of 2005. and we are currently losing community banks at a rate of one every day. increasing the eligibility threshold to $5 billion will ensure that small banks and savings and loan holding companies are able to issue debt and raise capital so that the community bank can continue to provide financial services to their customer and serve and increase their involvement in promoting economic growth in their local economic communities. it's important to note that this bill maintains the requirements that these holding companies meet regulations related to nonbanking activities, off balance sheet activities and publicly registered debt equity. the legislation also maintains a safeguard that allows the federal reserve to deny an increased dead level to any bank holding company it deems at risk of failure. together these bills will help
ensure that powerful regulators act in a transparent manner and are accountable to congress and provide needed relief for community banks attempting to survive in a difficult environment. i look forward to debating this bill with my colleagues and i urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend, the gentleman from ohio, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i rise today to oppose the rule providing for consideration of both h.r. 3340, the financial stability oversight council reform act, and h.r. 3791, to raise the consolidated asset threshold under the small bank holding company policy statement
and for other purposes. these partisan financial services bills, in my opinion, would weaken and politicize the institutions created after the financial crisis to identify and guard against systemic risk in our financial system. and they will allow even larger bank holding companies to leverage themselves with debt while financing the purchase of other banks. reviewing this legislation, i have to ask myself, are the memories of my republican iends really so short that they do not remember the pain that our nation went through only a few short years ago. the financial crisis of 2008, by everybody's statements, was the
worst economic downturn that this great nation has faced since the great depression. it left millions out of work and millions out of their homes. yet instead of supporting efforts to ensure that a collapse of this magnitude never happens again, the majority has chosen to weaken the very protections designed to prevent such a crisis. this is even more appalling when you consider that we are still dealing with the fallout from the crisis. ust this week, goldman sachs agreed to pay $5 billion to settle claims that it misled mortgage bond investors during the financial crisis. i was pleased to see that a portion of their repayment is going to go to low income and
moderate income housing. but mr. speaker, i guess we really shouldn't be surprised at the action by my friends in the majority. with the kinds of bills that have come to the floor under this republican congress, whether it be to roll back environmental protection, 60-plus repeals of the affordable health care act or deny access to women's health care, i guess it's not a surprise that now my republican friends are bringing up legislation to help the big banks and strip away the protections to prevent another financial crisis. i'm also left wondering why we're debating a rule for these bills today at all. i would like to remind the majority, and i will now and twice again before i yield back my time, that by law, body must
produce a budget resolution by friday of this week. despite this requirement, we still have no budget or a clear path to one. i ask the question, whether is the budget? and i pause here to yield to my friend from ohio if i could get his attention, just for a moment. i know you're on financial services. we serve together on rules but i'm not in the majority and privy to what may happen this friday but i'm just curious, since you are in the majority, regarding hearing us having a budget by this friday? mr. stivers: thank you for yielding. i'm hearing that negotiations are on fwoing and i'm hopeful we can have a budget by this friday, there is a bit of disagreement even inside our conference about how to move
forward on the budget as far as the numbers, but there are a lot of discussions ongoing and i'm hopeful. i support passing a bunnell, i vowed for a budget since i've been here. we've passed budgets every year since i've been here. we have not passed a deadline yet for this budget but we are, i'm hopeful we can get it done but it is -- it's an ongoing negotiation. mr. hastings: i appreciate my friend for his response. i urge that yesterday in the rules committee, aside from your subcommittee holding a hearing on this thursday at 3:00, we were advised by the chair that there would be no further business of the rules committee. so i assume if that is the case that we won't be going back to the rules committee, and i'm sure that the budget, if it were to be here by friday, would require a rule.
spite all of these things, i point out the fact that it doesn't appear that we will have a budget by friday. mr. speaker, here's how we got to this point. last fall republicans and democrats came together to pass a bipartisan budget agreement. now, however, republicans are refusing to support their party's own budget proposal. i understand what my friends said about negotiations going on and that's good. it will be helpful if those negotiations are going on with democrats in the room as well. i was very optimistic as i'm sure all of us were and to some degree still are, that paul ryan would return to regular order, i felt very optimistic about that. but it seems that the now
dubbed, do nothing congress, is back. and with it total dysfunction on the republican side of the aisle. the dysfunction is so bad that republicans cannot even agree to a budget number that they have already agreed to. now, democrats don't want to weaken the financial protections, keeping our economy stable and strong. instead, democrats are ready to pass a budget that creates and helps create jobs and grow the paychecks of hardworking americans. we'd like to work in a bipartisan way, and we would assuredly like to work in a way that would bring us to the work that is needed to be done in a positive manner. if only the republican conference could stand up to the extreme faction in their own party to work with us, then we could get this business done.
mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to inform the speaker and my colleague, i am prepared to close. i have no more speakers. if he wants to close, i'll reserve and allow him to close. i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i appreciate my friend advising. i advise my friend through the speaker that i, too, am prepared to close and will go forward with the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. these financial services bills are not what the american people want. these are bills that big banks want. instead of debating and passing a budget which we are required to do by law, by the end of this week, as i have said, the majority has decided we should spend what precious legislative time we have left debating bills
at would roll back vital protections to the systemic health of our financial system. now, nt only is the dysfunction in the republican conference putting one of the -- of this institutions most basic functions in jeopardy, passing a budget, to fund the government, but to add insult to injury, the majority has decided now is the best time to debate putting our entire financial system in jeopardy by rolling back measures designed to protect it. i might add there is an appellate decision that is not on this measure but on another that we dealt with earlier, and i don't understand why we are going forward on these measures when we know, in fact, that they aren't going to go anywhere in the other body. mr. speaker, in my judgment, the american people deserve better. so, since congress is required to pass a budget by friday of this week, and there's
absolutely little sign that the republican majority intends to fulfill that responsibility, well, mr. speaker, i want to give my friends on the other side of the aisle the opportunity to end the obstructionism and meet theirs and our obligation and pass a budget. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the republican budget resolution and allow for the consideration of alternative budget proposals under the same process we use every year. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question and vote no on the rule and the underlying bill, and i'm very pleased at this time to yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. stivers: thank you. i appreciate the comments of my colleague, and i can assure him we are working hard on a budget negotiation. although we cannot notify the committee of any upcoming meeting because we don't know when it will be because we don't know when the negotiations will be, i am hopeful that that will happen and we will actually end up having a budget that will be passed before the deadline again i'm hopeful, but i can't -- none of us can proehl control that ourselves. the noshe -- can control that ourselves. the negotiations are ongoing.
i would just say these two bills and the rule don't do anything to undermine our financial stability. the first bill butts the financial -- the o.f.r. on budget. it requires they have appropriations every year. you might be familiar with the appropriations clause of the u.s. constitution. no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. so we just want the normal constitutional checks and balances that exist in every other agency to exist here, too, to increase the transparency and accountability for what this -- these agencies do. so the first bill puts f sock and o.f.r. on budget, requires appropriations to be passed. it also requires periodic reports on what their goals and objectives are and how they are meeting those. that's kind of a no-brainer. again, senator, sherrod brown,
the democrat minority member on the -- ranking member on the senate banking committee, has -- second, i apologize, but it makes sense to do this. to put them on appropriations. the second bill is a bill that raises the limit for small financial institutions, community banks, up to $5 billion. we are talking about 400 banks. not the biggest banks. in fact, the biggest banks in america are almost $1 trillion. we are talking about $5 billion in consolidated assets in banks and savings and loans. these are community-based financial institutions. there is about 400 of them. they are struggling right now. we are losing a community bank a day in this country and we need to make sure we do everything we can to help those community banks continue. i know that's a bipartisan effort to do that. way may not be the exact
the other side of the aisle wants to move forward on that. i offer to the ranking member of the financial services committee yesterday in the rules committee that i would be happy to work with her on some other method if she thinks she wants to use an activity test, if she wants to require some kind of loans to assets, if she wants to require some kind of capital in this, i would be happy to work with her because we've got to help our community banks. i know that's a bipartisan feeling, i would say, mr. speaker, to the gentleman from florida, i know that the other side of the aisle feels the same way. we may have a tactical disagreement, but we all feel that way. i'd love to work on that. in the meantime, i hope my colleagues will support both these bills and the underlying rule. i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills. i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule the chair declares the house succeed >> "washington journal" continues. host: and joining us now is congressman tom rice. he is a republican from south carolina. and we're going to be talking
about the prospects for passing a republican budget, tax reform proposals and cybersecurity and taxpayer information. but first, let's start off by talking a little bit about politics and the campaign. yesterday, house speaker paul ryan took himself out of the running for the possibility of jumping into the convention. what did you think about his decision? guest: well, i wasn't surprised at all. i mean, he said repeatedly the same thing. people i guess don't want to hear it. i thought he handled it extremely appropriately. i thought it was very straightforward and honest like he is. and i thought it was a very selfless thing to do as well. i think he did the right thing. i'm proud of him. i'm proud of him as a speaker. host: ok. you are not currently endorsing any of the current candidates for president. might that change? might you make an endorsement before the convention?
guest: i don't think so. i think i want people to decide hat they want. i'd rather see the people decide. host: ok. in today's "wall street journal," there's an opinion piece that talks a little bit about house speaker paul ryan's decision to bail out and also his call to the convention delegate to impose rules that would prevent somebody else that isn't already running from jumping into the race. the paper says we disagreed that the g.o.p. convention must pick someone who has run for the office this year the nominee is likely to be one of the men now running. but in our view the delegates can and should choose the delegate most likely to win. if none of the current candidates win, a majority of the delegates after two or three ballots, anything can happen and the delegates have to nominate someone. what did you think about speaker ryan's call to limit the pool of
candidates to those two threw their hats into the ring during the campaign? guest: i agree with him. they have worked very hard and putting themself out to voters. i think for someone to come in at the very end without having been in the process, if i were people who had run and did all that, i would -- we can't win if we don't unify. that's the bottom line. the republican party has two choices. unify or lose. and i don't think that the way to unify would be to bring in a dark horse at the last minute. and again, i think what paul ryan did is a very selfless thing. and what we need is more people like him to exhibit that kind of selfless leadership and to put the needs of the country first. i think he's doing the right thing. host: ok. do you have concerns about a brokered convention, about what
that can do to the party? guest: sure. we've got to unite or we lose. if nobody comes in with a clear consensus, the chance of unifying go down. but let the process work. let's see who comes out of it. i think the chances of a brokered convention are more and more likely. i don't think trump supporters should take that as some sort of a slight or a cheat. i mean to me, that's like if he comes in with less than 1237 votes, i believe that's the number, right? if he comes in with less than that, it's like golfer missing his last putt by a half an inch and we say we should give it to him anyway. no, we shouldn't. the rules are the rules. if he doesn't come in with 1237, then the delegates need to decide. host: ok. we are talking with congressman tom rice, a republican from south carolina. for lines for this conversation,
republicans can call in, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. inns can call -- independence can call 202-748-8002. nd independents, 202-748-8002. i think i said that twice. i apologize for that. guest: you get flustered. host: i do too. a little bit. it's so much going on at this campaign. it's such an exciting time that's got me tongue-tied a little bit. you're speaking a little bit about donald trump in today's "new york times" editorial page. steven ratner piece says that congress essentially has created donald trump by -- through their efforts of spoiling the obama administration and some of the things that they've been doing. it starts off saying memo to republican legislatures. biting your nails over the new york primary, wondering if you
can finally derail donald trump's candidacy with gulp, ted cruz, you brought it on yourself. not just by failing for too long to take mr. trump seriously or by lacking an effective response what do you say of that? this is by steven ratner of the "new york times." guest: probably there's a grain of truth but it's primarily utter nonsense. he's right in a sense that washington created donald trump because there are problems that the president talks about every single day. and that democrats and the
congress talk about every single day and republicans in congress talk about every single day and yet nobody offers solutions to those problems. and it doesn't just come from congress. it comes from the president as well and the president is supposed to be our leader and the one thing -- you know, i certainly have admiration for the president. i think he's a smart guy. he's charismatic. one of the primary quality he lacks is leadership. i think he's failed in that miserably. so when the president gets up every other day and talks about need for tax reform, i absolutely agree with him. we need to do tax reform to make this country competitive. every day that we don't do it, we hurt our children and our grandchildren coming up through the system because more and more american companies and jobs leave our shores every other day and that's less opportunity for our kids. we need to do something like that. the president says it every other day. it.y congressmen says
and yet that proposals have -- what proposals have we seen? the president has not made any proposals for comprehensive tax reform. the only person i know that has made any proposal is dave kemp and he did that over the objection of the republican leadership. why? because whatever proposal you put out there, you're going to make people mad. some people are going to win. some people are going to lose. that's just a fact. and people don't want to take arrows or make hard decisions about things like tax reform. same thing with president obama care. that would be a republican thing. but one other things i respect about paul ryan is he came in and immediately said we're going to have this agenda project and we're going to put our ideas out there for specifics of tax reform, for specifics for replacing obamacare. for specifics with doing with our debts, so on and so forth.
and, you know, social security and medicare. another thing that everybody talks about, the president, republicans, democrats, have you seen proposals to fix it? no. the only person who's put out a proposal to fix medicare was paul ryan. he put it out like five years ago. remember the commercials with the democrats put on with paul ryan? paul ryan has thrown grandmom off the cliff. the truth is if we don't fix it, we are throwing grandmom off the cliff. paul ryan has had the courage to put the proposal out there. and what did he get for it? he got arrows for it. that's why there's these basic problems and there's not that many of them. i believe that if we could solve them, our economy would accelerate. the country would be more confident and secure. and they're problems that everybody talks about, not just the congress but the president
too. if we could solve some of these problems, if we could show the leadership to solve some of these problems, we wouldn't have donald trump. so to that extent, i think he's right but to lay it on the republicans and congress is nonsense. and in fact, a lot of the things that we complain about, the republicans in the house had put up solution after solution after solution. and harry reid and 46 democrats in the senate prevent from even taken up for a vote. so best example i can think of on that is the ceiling of refugee issues when the head of the f.b.i. said that we're not properly vetting these people. we 80% of the public in a programmed delay. the house has a built in november, december and said we
will delay the program and not stop it until headed the fbi says we can properly that these people and it passed the house with strong democrat support. over 290 votes vetoed, the majority. law evenlity to appeal six democrats to get a vote in the senate and give it to the president is fascinating to me. of all the things that have overwhelming public support, so a lot of stopping up congress has come from the collusion between harry reid and the president, and that is a fact. to lay this on republicans in congress is under nonsense. host: we are talking to republican congressman tom rice about the state of politics info andfriday's tax
other issues. we want to bring in a caller from new york. caller: [indiscernible] guest: hi, mike, how are you? caller: i am fine. what i am saying to you is there is no reason why you, obama, you, obama and the democrats cannot get together and put everything on the table and type to work a compromise. -- and try to work a compromise. the risk should be taken. can spend $20p million, why didn't he take that money and buy and do it rockefeller senior did. i could take some of that money and spend it on education like [indiscernible] you, theno reason why
republicans, the democrats, the moderates, the liberals and obama can get together and get together to find a program. guest: you know what the reason is, mike? lack of leadership, my friend. there is a fear to come out with specific solutions to solve these difficult problems. that is why you have not seen the president make a proposal on tax reform. the only proposal has come out of the house committee. we are working on hearings right now in congress. there have been three or four different hearings. they call the listing sections. paul ryan has said he wants to come out with a specific tax reform proposal by june, and i am very proud of him doing that. that requires leadership. it should have been done years ago. and iran in 2012 for the -- when
the first a talk for time and people asked about tax reforms, i said that our tax code is reprehensible and it makes our country uncompetitive in the world, and it is costing us hundreds and thousands, millions of jobs every single year. we have got to do something about it. the president says it all the time. when you heard him campaign in 20 to with a new tax reform, i was sure it would happen in 2013. we have a lame duck president with nothing to lose. i was sure he would lead us to one of those campaign policies and it did not happen. no specific proposals. came from overal the objection of the republican leadership at that time. why? because they did not want to take the error for something that was not passed, but that is what leadership requires. it has got to get done. it is hurting our country, your
region, your children and your grandchildren. it has got to get done. we have got to show leadership in paul ryan with his agenda project is starting us down the path. tax reform,sue of what is it about tax reform that is so difficult? the attempt to try to pass tax reform proceeds the obama administration. it started taking place in the bush administration as well. what about tax reform is so difficult? guest: excuse me. like 60,000 is pages now. it is incredibly complex. there are people with invested interest in every single aspect. the most obvious example, let's say, you go to the home mortgage deduction, do think some people would be upset? i'm not proposing we do away with that, but what we need to do is start on page one and go to page 60000 and look at why
deductions and credits or put in the code. some people called loopholes, but the truth is, almost every single one of them are put in with legitimate purpose to try to encourage economic activity to benefit the country, so we have to look at everyone and make sure they are still relevant. if they are not, they need to come out. we need to work toward a system with a lower rate held make us competitive in the world. anything we do, we will upset somebody. you hear about it, you have to show leadership and do it is right. host: up next on the republican line, leon from georgia. you are on with congressman tom rice. caller: hello -- thank you, congressman. i went to talk about the delegate system in the united states. i think it is wrong. i think people should use their elections to pick up a candidate
that we want, not the delegates. i think we need to take care of tax on. it should have been taken care of a long time ago and it should be taken care of because and get its actions, these big companies are just cheating and lying about it terry, like your opinion on that. thank you. guest: the delegate system is really not a matter of law. it is about party rules, where the republican party has its rules and the democratic party has its rules. quite honestly, i am not horribly familiar with either one. it does seem a little askew when i hear about all these superdelegates being allocated not necessarily based on the votes of the people, but their publican party rules say that if you don't get the majority of the delegates on the first ballot of the convention, then he kind of opens it up in the delegates get freed up to do whatever they want to. had beenthe rules that in existence as far as i know for hundreds of years.
broker conventions are nothing new. i think the last one was in 1964 when the democrats had a brokered convention. or excuse me, the republicans that a brokered convention then. whether or not those rules need to be changed and how they need to be changed, i'm sorry. i am not an expert. and i certainly agree with you on the tax reform. attacks code is competitive in the world and there are a lot of things to do. american competitiveness is my focus in congress. to makevery day to try this country more competitive, and there are many things that to where our companies based year can fairly compete around the world because if you have to companies, and they both make the same product, buy the both have to same materials to make their products, then they broke compete for this same customers. one of those companies is paying taxes at 39% and the other is
paying in ireland at 13%. guess what? there is no way. it is an economic fact that the company paying the higher taxes can survive. we have a team of economists, republicans and democrats, and a couple weeks ago, i asked them that hypothetical. everyone of them said, when two companies in the exact same the same buying materials, compete in the same customers, one pays 39% tax, one pays 13% tax, can you tell me how the story ends? everyone of them said, either the company paying the highest tax will go out of this is or be bought by the foreign competitor. look at what is happening. companyamerican icon after american icon company either moving offshore or being bought by foreign countries. it isnot when people say a matter of corporate greed that
they moved overseas. it is not corporate greed. it is a matter of economic fact. they cannot survive paying two times or three times as much in their rate has the competitors overseas. it cannot compete. that is a matter to her economic fact. all the issue in the world will not change that. host: up next on the independent mind, sheila from winchester, virginia. you are on the line with congressman tom rice. caller: good morning, congressman rise. i have two things for you, sir. one, what is the chance of >> we'll leave this "washington journal" segment here to return to the house for live coverage of votes. onouse resolution 672, adopting house resolution 672 if order. ordering the previous question on house resolution 671 and adopting house resolution 671 if ordered. the first electronic vote will
be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 672 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 106, house resolution 672. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2666 to prohibit the federal communications commission from regulating the rates charged for broadband internet access service. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 243rk the nays are 18 . the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote
will rise. 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 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.]
without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 671 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 105, house resolution 671, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3340, to place the financial stability over sight council and the office of financial research under the regular appropriations process. provide for certain quarterly reporting and public notice and comment requirements for the office of financial research, nd for other purposes. of the bill h.r. 3791 to raise the consolidated asset threshold under the small bank holding company policy statement, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on point of order a quorum is not presenting the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national cti