tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN November 17, 2016 9:00am-3:01pm EST
the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. merciful god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we come to the end of a week where we have given thanks for peaceful elections throughout our country, andle welcoming of those new -- and the welcoming of those newly elected to this assembly in anticipation of the 115th congress. now we approach a week during which americans will gather to remember who we're. a nation generously blessed not only by you, our god, but by courageous ancestors, faithful allies, and the best good wishes of people everywhere who long for freedom, who would
glory in the difficult work of paragraph tiss payive government and who do not enjoy the bounty we are privileged to possess. bless the members of this assembly and us all that we would be worthy of the call we have been given as americans. help us all to be truly thankful and appropriately generous in our response. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, 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 will be led by the gentleman from illinois, mr. bost. mr. bost: 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: the chair will justice department tain up to five requests for one minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> to be recognized for one minute. the speaker: the gentleman is ecognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor private first class tyler uebelt. he was an illinois native. of ping 2015 graduate anyville high school. he enjoyed the outdoors, grilling, playing practical jokes on his friends and teachers. he was known as a smart and good natured kid and had a great future. he was a son, a husband, and just recently a father. last sunday he died a hero. upon graduation, tyler entered the u.s. army stationed at fort hood, texas.
mr. bost: he was transferred to the air force base in afghanistan. according to the pentagon, a tibetan terrorist managed to ignite an i.e.d. at the base killing tyler, sergeant john perry, and two american contractors, 17 more were injured. an investigation is ongoing. but our prayers are needed now. for tyler's wife, shelby, for baby violet, for his parents, his extended family, and his many friends in southern illinois. tyler paid the ultimate sacrifice for this nation. and for that we will always be grateful. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: 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. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize barbara wong an incredible advocate for
the arts who has been compeblingive director of providence city arts for youth for 16 years. throughout her career barbara has helped thousands of youth realize the importance of art in their own lives, as well as this extraordinary power to create social change. thanks to her, the arts community in providence is more vibrant, more diverse, and accessible for children from all backgrounds than ever before. in 2014 her dedication to ensuring that all children have the same opportunities to learn about and pursuit the arts helped providence city arts for youth earn a trip to the white house to receive the prestigious national arts in humanities youth program award. it's my honor to thank barbara for her years of service to the children and young people of providence and wish her all the best in the coming years. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in memory of raffle cicerone who
passed away november 5 at the age of 73. he served as the university of california ire vine's chancellor from 1998 until 2005. during that time u.c.i. experience tremendous success under his leadership, including raising the school's national rankings and breaking ground on its teaching hospital. mrs. walters: beyond his contributions to the community, ralph was world renowned for his innovative, scientific research that has helped shape environmental policy. our thoughts are with raffle's wife, his daughter, and his two grandchildren. he will be truly missed but long remembered for his contributions to the orange county u.c.i. and science communities. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this is another in a series of one-minutes on cool science endeavors by american scientists. today i discuss a system that
provide data about the distribution of greenhouse greenhouse gas throughout the years. hippo maps the composition and interaction of greenhouse gases as they move around the earth. this information is used to identify the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. the field efforts were highly successful and these unique experiments are providing valuable insight into the role of the global carbon cycle in the system. this data has been made publicly available and will be a source of information for years to come. mr. mcnerney: the project was a coordinated effort by the n.s.f. and noaa to require a clear picture of the impact of carbon dioxide on rainforests and other ecosystems. i urge congress to continue its support for scientific endeavors such as hippo so we can gain a better understanding of our earth's climate system. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one
minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bilirakis: i rise today to shine a light on the millions of americans impacted by deadly diseases that currently have no cure. we know that better treatments and cures for diseases like cancer, a.l.s., alzheimer's, and the 7,000 rare diseases are within our reach. we must -- we need to break down the government barriers to innovation and discovery. the 21st century cures act will do just that. i stand with my colleagues on the energy and commerce committee when i say, let's get this done. we have the chance now to help make a profound impact on people's lives. with cures and my provision the open act we're opening the doors for medical breakthroughs to happen. for the sake of millions of patients and their families. let's get 21st century cures across the finish line. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. you, mr. thank speaker. over the last 5 1/2 years i have spoken here on the house floor more times than i can count, but this will be my last. i'm retiring from congress and joining the los angeles county board of supervisors. a position my father held for 40 years where he did so much good for so many people. few people have the privilege to serve their community and their country in the united states congress. i'm honored by the trust my constituents invested in me to represent them. i have been humbled by the experience and continue to be in awe of the time i have spent as both a witness and participant to history.
washington can be a difficult place, but i have managed to make incredible friends here with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. from my good friend, congressman ted poe, my co-chair on the port caucus, to david cicilline, my best friend, my inspiration for the issues that he addresses each and every day. to louie gohmert, my co-chair for the national prayer breakfast. i want to thank leader pelosi for her example and for the strength she instills in all of us in the democratic caucus. i'm eager to get back to work in los angeles, but i will be sorry to say goodbye to all of you. i have appreciated your support , your friendship, your dedication to your constituents, and to this great country. and i will forever be grateful to have known you.
the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman fromable ack seek recognition? >> seek nuke to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize director jonathan jarvis on his impressive career preserving some our nation's most treasured places as director of the national park service. director jarvis serves as the 18th director in the n.p.s. history and has developed his love for national parks at a young age. with his family's farm tucked in virginia's shenandoah valley backing up to the washington national forest. a virginia native, director jarvis graduated from the college of william and mary with a degree in biology and began his career as a seasonal interpretive ranger in the national mall in 1976. mr. hill: as director, he
oversees an agency responsible for over 400 national parks, attracting some 280 million visitors each year. recently while on the grounds of teddy roosevelt's beloved home, i was pleased to hear his vision for the essential role of parks in our national life. at the end of this year, the centennial year of the national park service, director jarvis will retire after 40 years of service. i extend my warmest regards and best wishes to director jarvis in this next chapter of his life. happy trails. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this week this house passed two important measures dealing with the problems we have in the middle east. one measure on extending the iran sanctions, the ability for the president to authorize
those, that would have expired at the end of this year, was passed by this house in order to give this administration and the next one tools needed for the bad behavior of iran that continues to exhibit. mr. lamalfa: we cannot trust that they'll continue to adhere to the bad agreement made. also an important measure was at for syria to -- sanctions against their prolivity to bring violence upon their citizens. we need both of these measures for this president and this administration currently, and more importantly going into the next one to be able to enforce against these bad activities happening in the middle east. i urge the senate to take up these measures, i urge this president to pass these measures so we have these important tools to prevent this kind of violence in the middle east using our sanction ability. yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and tend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 5982. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. -- pursuant to house resolution 921 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 5982. the chair appoints the gentleman from california, mr. denham, to preside over the ommittee of the whole.
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 5982, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5 united states code to provide for en bloc consideration and resolutions of disapproval for midnight rules and for what purpose does. . the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. as the obama administration comes to a close, americans' freedom and prosperity is once again threatened by one of the most abusive features of modern bureaucracy, midnight regulation. midnight regulation is one of the most vecksing problems in weark washington's overreaching regulatory system. administration after
administration, there is a spike in rulemaking activity during the last year of a president's term, particularly between election day and inauguration day, but even in the months before then. these successive waves of midnight regulation provide deeply troubling issues. first and foremost, outgoing administrations are not accountable to the voters. they are prone that flies in the face of the electoral mandate the voters just gave the new incoming administration. waves of midnight rules can also be very hard for congress or a new administration to check adequately. as a new congress and president begin their terms, both understandably must be focused on implementing the new priorities within the mandates the voters have given them. that doesn't always leave time to focus on cleaning up all the last acts of the departing administration. in addition, the congressional review act currently allows congress to disapprove of regulations, including midnight
regulations, only one at a time. a wave of midnight regulations can ease overwhelm congress to use this as an effective check. timely, it's well documented that the rush of outgoing administrations to impose midnight rules before the clock strikes 12:00 leads to more poorly analyzed rules with lower quality and lower benefits. the obama administration has imposed more runaway regulation than any other in memory, and its midnight rulemaking period is no exception. this administration has issued or plans to issue at least 180 midnight rules within the scope of this bill. including multiple billion-dollar rules and more than 20 major rules imposing $100 million or more in costs per year. it has been estimated that as many as $113 billion in new regulatory costs can be attributed to the final months
of the obama administration's rulemaking activity. but this is not a partisan issue. administrations of both parties have issued midnight rules in the past. the judiciary committee has been searching for that solution for some time, and i applaud our colleague, mr. issa, for introducing the midnight rules relief act to respond to the need. this bill offers at last a simple and powerful means to stop the problem of abusive midnight rules, allowing congress to disapprove of any and all midnight regulations in one fell swoop by one en bloc disapproval resolution under the congressional review act. any outgoing administration understanding that it has this sort of damocles hanging over its head for the next congress' use will surely hesitate much more before abusing midnight rules. further, once enabled to dispatch of all improper midnight rules with one simple
resolution, congress and succeeding administrations would be free to focus more of their energies on the voters' new priorities rather than the mess left by midnight rules. the relief offered by the bill, moreover, is highly flexible. no set number of regulations would have to be covered by a resolution. no categories of regulations would have to be included or excluded from a resolution. on the contrary, any midnight rule disapproval resolution could be sweeping or narrow, depending on how many rules merited inclusion. finally, the midnight rules relief act offers a solution that is not intrusive upon legit mate executive branch authority -- legitimate executive branch authority. fall to congress to respond swiftly and surgecally to the results to accept the -- surgically to the results to
accept the good and not the bad. that's why this is featured in speaker ryan's better way agenda. i thank mr. issa for his work on this important legislation. i urge all my colleagues to support the bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen of the house, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 5982, the midnight rules relief act. this sweeping measure would empower congress to under virtually every regulation submitted to congress since may through to the end of this year. i repeat. this measure would empower congress to undo virtually virtually every regulation
submitted to congress since may through the end -- to the end of this year. the bill accomplishes this end by authorizing congress to disapprove these rules through a single joint resolution, thereby depriving members to consider the merits of each individual regulation. .r. 5982 presents numerous concerns to begin with. this bill would provide special interests with yet another opportunity to block critical, life-saving regulations. prior to submitting rules to congress, agencies typically take several years to ensure hat rules are carefully vetted . as administrative law expert washington university school of law ron levin has previously testified, much of modern
rulemaking involves a very detailed analysis of legal, factual and policy issues, many of them highly technical. this work is better suited to the subject matter specialist in the respective agencies. faced with this complexity, h.r. 5982 would result in ongress predictably relying on industry input when presented with an up or down vote on a long list of complicated and often highly technical rules. david gold stein of the national resource -- goldstein of the national resources defense council, has previously cautioned that similar measures would result in special interests descending on the congress with even greater fervor than is currently the
case. i'm also concerned that h.r. 5982 is based on the fundamentally flawed premise that rules finalized during the final year of a president's term are somehow rushed or improperly vetted. in fact, the nonpartisan administrative conference of the united states found that in 2012 that, quote, a dispassionate look at the midnight rules issued of past administrations of both political parties reveals that most were under active consideration long before the november election. the conference also reported that many of these rules involve purely routine matters initiated before the presidential transition period or as the result of deadlines outside the agency's control,
such as year-end, statutory or court ordered deadlines. indeed, the so-called midnight rules may actually take longer to adopt than other rules. for example, public citizen reports that rules adopted during a presidential transition period were typically proposed 3.6 years prior to their adoption, while other rules adopted in nontransition periods took only 2.8 years to complete. the center for progressive reform has likewise observed that concerns around -- surrounding midnight rulemaking are overstated, stating that there simply is no reason to believe that a rule released at the end of an administration is worse than they are released at
any other point. perhaps this is because congress already has tools to vacate an unreasonable rule under current law, known as the congressional review act. and lastly, as with many other anti-regulatory bills we've considered in this congress, this legislation completely ignores the benefits of regulation and is premised on the unsubstantiated belief that it undermines employment or economic growth. this is why h.r. 5982 is opposed by a broad coalition of organizations, including the afl-cio, the consumer federation of america, consumers union and the national resources defense
council. as the administration correctly observes, in connection with its veto threat to this bill -- and there is one -- h.r. 5982 would create tremendous regulatory uncertainty, potentially imposing additional costs on businesses and represent a step backwards for applying sound regulatory principles to protect public health, safety, the environment and other critical aspects of society. accordingly, i oppose and hope that you will, too, this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i'm pleased now to recognize the
distinguished member of judiciary, mr. hank johnson of georgia, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. the midnight rules relief act of 2016 is yet another unfounded and reckless attempt to prevent the implementation of critical laws by the republican majority. h.r. 5982 would amend the congressional review act to enable congress to bundle numerous rules finalized during the final year of a president's term into a single vote on a joint resolution of disapproval. alarmingly, once these rules have been invalidated through this process, the agency may not adopt a subsequent similar rule absent expressed authorization from congress. according to my republican colleagues, the obama administration's regulatory agenda has eroded job growth and economic prosperity. far from it, however. under president obama's
leadership, we've seen the longest consecutive streak of private job creation, the fastest growing middle class income ever and more high-quality and affordable health care for working americans. recently, the census bureau released new data indicating that in 2015, the medium household income grew at the fastest rate on record while the poverty rate fell at a faster rate than at any point since 1968. new data from the american community survey, likewise, indicates that number of uninsured americans is declining in nearly every state. these met ricks reflect a strong -- these metrics reflect a strong record as agencies implement laws like the dodd-frank act and the affordable care act. if anything, mr. chairman, we need new rules and better enforcement of existing law to ensure corporate accountability. in fact, it's only been months since the shocking revelations of wells fargo's years of
illegal banking practices since those practices have come to light. this sweeping display of corporate deception and human being russ smacks at the very -- hubris smacks at the very culture that gave rise to the mortgage crisis, collapsing the economy and employment. indeed, as u.s. treasury secretary jack lew has cautioned, this scandal ought to be a moment where people stop and remember how dangerous the system is when you don't have the proper protections in place. while the consumer financial protection bureau has issued its largest civil penalty ever, $100 million, in response to the wells fargo scandal, this was a drop in the bucket compared to the bank's $20 billion in profits last year or its chief executive's $200 million stock compensation deal. what's more, not only did the bank deceive its own customers,
wells fargo buried the scandal through forsd arbitration clauses that -- forced arbitration claused that shielded itself from public accountability. this is simply unacceptable and drives home the point there is still much work to be done to ensure fairness and accountability in the financial system, regardless of how many days may be left in papt's term. in closing, i -- in a president's term. in close, i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield four minutes to the gentleman from ohio, the chairman of the small business committee, mr. chabot. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for four minutes. mr. chabot: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his leadership. as chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte has done an excellent job there and we appreciate the work on this bill and many other things as well. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 5982, the midnight rules relief act,
introduced by my friend and colleague from california, mr. issa. over the last eight years, the obama administration has gone, let as face t. on a regulatory rampage. each year the administration's major rules have cost over $100 billion, $100 billion. a disproportionate share of those enormous cost vs. fallen on america's 28 million small businesses. -- costs have fallen on america's 28 million small businesses. i have heard first hand from the owners and employees of these small businesses in our hearing room, also back home in my district in cincinnati, ohio, how these new regulations have harmed them personally. and i want to emphasize that it doesn't just hurt the owner of the small business, but all those folks who work for them. sometimes that's two people, three people, five people, 10 people. it affects them and their families. and generally it's very adversely.
i think it's critical that we realize that about 70% of the new jobs created in the american job nowadays are created by these small businesses that have been basically -- that had these regulations, that this administration imposed on them, it's like a wet blanket over them and over this economy. so this particular legislation is absolutely critical. it's critical we pass it. the last time -- really the last thing that these small businesses need right now is a new flood of new regulations from the president's army of bureaucrats as they beat a hasty retreat out of washington. outgoing presidents oftentimes push through new regulations in the final days of their administrations to lock in as much of their agenda as possible. let's face t. on election day that agend -- let's face it, on election day that agenda was rejected. to allow an administration to impose even more bureaucracy
and more regulations under the small business community and on the american people, it's just something we should not allow to happen. that's why this legislation has been introduced. these so-called mi night 9 -- midnight rules are thrown together hastily with little analysis or regard to the costs and burdens they'll impose on americans' entrepreneurs. sadly the administration has given every indication that they will be ramping up, not slowing down, the red tape dispenser over the next nine weeks. this commonsense, bipartisan legislation will give congress the elected representatives of the american people, after all, the power to stop all midnight rules with one vote. next weekend we'll celebrate small business saturday. an opportunity to celebrate small businesses and recognize that they are a key to making our economy succeed. midnight regulations are an imminent threat to their success.
let's not spoil small business saturday by having a whole bunch of new regulations, new red tape, new things that they have to deal with other than actually doing things which will make their business successful so that they can actually make a profit and hire more people. let's not allow the bureaucrats here in washington to spoil that. i would urge my colleagues to pass this bill and send a clear message to our small businesses all across america that we have their back. and regulatory relief is on the way. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, for as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to h.r. 5982, the so-called midnight rules relief act, which amends the congressional review act.
this bill would allow congress to consider a joint resolution to simultaneously disapprove multiple regulations en bloc. all at once. when such rules are issued within the last 60 legislative days of a session of congress in the final year of a president's term. now that's legislative days. in this case 60 legislative days would reach back until may of this year. almost eight months before the end of a president's term. to call the rules issued last spring a midnight rule is a curious use of the word. this bill puts in place an indiscriminate process to eliminate rules, many of which have been under consideration for years, even decades, to protect consumers, working people, and students. this bill denies congress the opportunity for a careful, case buy case review that the congressal review process now provides and that process would be appropriate for a reasoned
decisionmaking by a legislative body. this bill would jettison rules without even considering the cost and benefits of whether the rule followed the least burdensome approach to achieve a goal. under the law, once a rule is rejected, the rule can never be taken up again in substantially similar form. after a thoughtful review, we might decide that the unpleasant regulation was actually the better way to address a problem than any alternative, but by then it's too late. mr. chairman, the congressional review act under the act the senate could pass its en bloc -- by the act the senate could pass the en bloc resolution of disapproval without even holding a hearing and send it to the house for a vote on the floor without any form of consideration by committee, and so we would end up just voting on a slogan or sound bite without any opportunity for deliberative consideration.
that's not a responsible way to legislate. there's always been criticism of a tendency, of a significant number of rules and regulations, to be issued -- following a presidential leaks before the president leaves office -- election, before the president leaves office, regardless of the party in control. however the administrative conference of the united states found that, and i quote, a dispassionate look at midnight rules issued by past administrations of both political parties reveals that most were under active consideration long before the november election. they go on to say that many of the rules involved routine matters or were required by law. for example, an osha rule to prevent injuries by inadequate fall protections has been under development for over 26 years. the administrative conference called on congress to put in place a 60-day waiting period for rules that are issued after a presidential election so that the new incoming administration
can review the rules. now, that legislation is what we really ought to be considering, not the bill before us today. i think it's important to look at some of the rules that could be impacted under this bill. the department of labor issued a rule requiring federal contractors to provide up to seven days of paid sick leave annually for people working on federal contracts. a forthcoming osha regulation which has been under development for over 18 years would protect workers from overexposure of barillium, a substance that can cause incurable lung disease. that rule has been under consideration for 18 years and we're finally getting to the actual rule. the rule to implement the fair play and workplace executive order which ensures that taxpayer dollars support those federal contractors who comply with labor, civil rights, and workplace safety laws, not those who routinely and seriously violate such laws.
the eeoc commission rule which helps eliminate pay disparities due to race, ethnicity, and gerned -- gender. a rule that helps protect student borrowers defrauded by their universities. the education department's forthcoming k through 12 accountability rule which provides clarity and ensures for faithful implementation of the bipartisan every student succeed act in order to graduate all students ready for success in college or career. the department of education's forthcoming supplement which ensures that federal dollars actually supplement state and local education funds that target at-risk youth. finally, another health and human services head start rule which improves quality and access to our nation's most vulnerable early learners. each of these rules involves complex issues that cannot be discussed or properly addressed through the en bloc process which you have a bunch of regulations all in one bill.
if a rule needs to be challenged, the present law provides for a deliberative process to challenge the rule. regrettably h.r. 5982 is poised to allow a wholesale undermining of critical protections for students, workers, taxpayers, and consumers. i therefore urge a no vote on the bill and ask unanimous consent that, mr. chairman, to introduce into the record a statement of administrative policy in opposition to the rule. the chair: that will be covered by general leave. mr. scott: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. issa, a member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. issa: thank you, mr. chairman. presidents of both parties have made a habit of midnight rules. and although here today we hear about 18 years of a deliberative process on
barillium, 18 years of consideration and it has to be passed in the last few days of a departing administration? what was the administration doing for eight years? how deliberative can one be? the fact is these are not accidents. midnight rules are, in fact, deliberately held to the end of an administration. that's the reason they are called midnight rules. having said that, the bill today, 5982, is not, in fact, about midnight rules. we already have legislation to take care of that. what we don't have is an effective way to do it when e're dealing with perhaps 100, 1 to, 150, and if not checked perhaps more in times to come midnight rules from an outgoing administration. we're talking today about the balance of power. about whether congress should be efficient and effective in its ability to consider
legislation. in this case, legislation done by the other branch, a branch not actually allowed to do legislation. let's remember, regulations are, in fact, a loan to the executive branch to clarify legislation done by this body. if we believe that they do not fairly and appropriately interpret our legislation in their rule making, if we believe they exceeded the authority or the meaning of the legislation, whether passed just a few days ago, few years ago, or in fact, a century ago, we have an obligation to bring up, consider, and respond. in fact, rule making as we know it is, in fact, something that if the gentleman, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, wanted to, he could bring up the regulation as a law. and consider it in this body at any time.
i believe it's pretty clear that the objection in this case is an anticipated objection to the efficiency of being able to deal with more than one or two regulations at the end of a presidency. we have an obligation to deal with all of them in a fair way. now, one thing that was missed in this is nothing in this legislation requires that we take them all up at the same time. in the next congress, it certainly would be appropriate for members who wanted to have longer debate to ask for longer debate ton the overall vote -- on the overall vote or break it into pieces and ask for that. it's true in this body and the other body. as a matter of fact the other body hasn't created rules yet and could create rules that would define further debate on midnight rules. i think today what we're really talking about is, will congress live up to its responsibility to the american people to, in
fact, be the bastion of law creation, whether laws are created by this body directly or in the review of regulations created by an administration on behalf of this body, but ultimately we own responsibility for laws and regulations whether they work or don't work. lastly, this body has not done nearly enough to review regulations and their effect. during my tenure on another committee, over and over again i saw regulations, by both administrations i have served under, to create regulations that they said would cost little or nothing. by the time they come to pass we discover they almost inevitably have great impact to our economy, adverse impact in many cases, than forecasted. that review is another area we should do. but for today, this simple piece of legislation is only asking that congress live up to
its responsibility and do so in a way that would not tie up weeks or months of either body simply to decide that a regulation needs to be sent back for further review and perhaps reissued in a fashion more consistent with the laws created by this body and signed by previous presidents. i thank the chairman for his yielding time. i yield back the balance. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i have no other requests for speakers. and i am prepared to close if the gentleman is likewise. mr. goodlatte: we're prepared to close as well. mr. conyers: fine. the chair: gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i have closing remarks that i would like to present at this time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: with just a few weeks remaining in this congress, members, it is a
disservice to the american people that we are now wasting our limited time and resources on this legislation. as many of my colleagues will recall, less than four months ago the house passed comprehensive anti-regulatory legislation that imposes a moratorium on so-called midnight rulemaking. so clearly the house has already acted, has already acted to address the nonexistent problem of midnight rulemaking. and so in closing, i urge my colleagues to seriously join me in opposing h.r. 5982, a bill that is utterly unnecessary, conceived. and ill mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields
back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: on election day the american people delivered a resounding message to washington, do not continue the obama administration's policies, stop the regulatory big government onslaught that has been strangling recovery and suffocating our futures. passage of this bill is a way to say immediately, we have heard you loud and clear. the american people have said, no, to the continuance of the obama administration's policies. this bill guarantees that congress can prevent any and all last-minute defiance of the people's will by midnight regulations that stubbornly seek to entrench the last pieces of the administration's bipartisan agenda. those come from heast of agencies. they include everything from overtime rules to greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles and scores of regulations in deep and they threaten to
impose on our economy over $100 billion in new annual costs. it is not obama administration bureaucrats who should tell the people what they must do in these areas, rushing costly, political preferences out the door before the stroke of midnight. it is the incoming administration working with congress that should determine the rules to govern the future, and the regulatory rollbacks that will threat freedom ring and americans to prosper. i urge my colleagues to support the bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 114-818. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report 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 opponent and shall not be subject to the amendment and hall not be subject for demand of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 114-818. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk and i ask that it be reported. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 114-818 offered by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 921, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. members of the house, my amendment would exempt from issued in he rules
response to an imminent threat to health, safety or other emergencies. my amendment addresses one of the most problematic aspects of h.r. 5982, which would permit congress to invalidate rules en bloc without proper consideration of any individual rules' benefits and no matter how important or time sensitive such a rule may be. agencies often promulgate emergency rules in response to immediate threats to public health and safety. and as the congressional review act itself recognizes, such critical rules can go into effect immediately if the president so directs by executive order. but h.r. 5982 would, however, empower and subsequent congress
and administrations to override such determination and disapprove these rules, and as a result of such disapproval, these rules will be null and void as if they had never taken effect. it's no secret that industry and special interest have strenuously opposed many life-saving requirements that the federal government has imposed over the years, such as air quality standards, the mandatory installation of automobile air bags and emergency exit lighting for passenger airplanes. nevertheless, h.r. 5982 provides an open invitation for industry to have yet another bite of the apple by seeking to undo regulations in a new congress and administration.
for example, let us consider the flint water crisis in my state, which was preventable public -- which was a preventable public health disaster. while much blame for the flint water crisis lies with unelected officials who prioritize saving money over saving lives, the presence of lead in drinking water is not unique to flint. in fact, the drinking water of potentially millions of americans may be contaminated by lead. it's a continuing problem. long before this crisis surfaced, the environmental protection agency had been in the process of updating its lead and copper rule which was originally promulgated in 1991 after years of analysis. in fact, the agency's still in the process of finalizing this
regulation. yet, had this rule been submitted to congress last month and gone into effect immediately pursuant to executive order, h.r. 5982 could be used by the incoming congressional administration to invalidate this critical regulation. so accordingly, i strongly urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: the midnight rules relief act leaves to each congress making use of its maximize its flexibility to fashion a midnight disapproval resolution. no one category regulation is in. no one category of regulation south. the question instead is, which
are the midnight rules from whatever categories that fly in the face of the voters' mandate or are otherwise abusive or in firm? no carveouts of any kind are needed, including for health, safety and other emergency rules, because nothing is categorically carved in. indeed, by carving out emergency rules, the amendment would only impede the ability of congress to both respond swiftly and efficiently to abusive midnight rules and clear the path for the incoming administration to issue appropriate new rules to meet emergencies. i urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. goodlatte: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: we have no other requests. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. conyers: i ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in art b of house report 114-818. the gentleman will suspend. does the gentleman have an
amendment? mr. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 114-818 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 921, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chair. this amendment is simple. it would exempt rules issued by an agency more than three years prior to this submission to congress. this amendment is designed to look at the fundamentally flawed premise of 5982. namely, that rules submitted to congress during the final 60 legislative days of a session are somehow less valid than rules submitted prior to that period. to set the record straight, this bill does not apply to rules submitted during the lame-duck period following an election.
notwithstanding the bill's colorful title, h.r. 5982 applies to every rule submitted to congress within the final 60 legislative days of a session. as the nonpartisan congressional research service has clarified, this would include rules submitted as early as may of 2016. eight mobts should be adequate time for -- months should be adequate time for congress to consider the merits of economically significant rules which often take rules to finalize. indeed, according to the nonpartisan connelly established administrative conference -- congressionally established administrative conference of the u.s., many during the election and inauguration of a new president involve relatively routine matters not by incumbent administrations. public citizens similarly found in a report earlier this year that rules adopted during the final months of an
administration take 3.6 years on average to finalize. and that's just rules that are submitted to congress during the final three months of a president's term. again, this bill applies to rules adopted during much of the final year of the president's term, dramatically undercutting the bill's stated purpose. so despite the majority's claims that the bill applies to midnight rules, this legislation would allow congress to bundle numerous rules finalized during the final year of a president's term into a single vote on a joint resolution of disapproval. in other words, mr. chairman, this bill is a solution to a nonexistent and undocumented problem. alarmingly, once -- alarmingly, once these rules have been validated through the process, they may not adopt a similar rule absent expressed authorization by congress.
i am also struck by the irony of the majority's stated concerns with a lack of transparency and public scrutiny in the policymaking process. this bill has not been subject to a single hearing. in fact, it was introduced less than a week prior to its markup in committee. this legislation is symptomatic of a republican majority more interested in focusing on coming up with the next great bill title or acronym than actually solving issues or helping the american people. perhaps the majority should follow its own advice and proceed with regular order on new and controversial legislation. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which is critical to ensuring that the rules that have already taken years to finalize to improve lives and protect people actually see the light of day. and with that i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves.
for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. . goodlatte: it gives heel dragging, inefficient agencies to take even lker to finalize rules proposed long ago to the public. this will only extend the regulatory uncertainty that hovers over job creators whenever new rules are proposed. regulatory uncertainty freezes investment and job creation and that section actly what we do not need washington to do. second, the amendment gives agencies the incentive to cram even more rules into the abusive midnight rule period. we should not be -- we should be discouraging the use of midnight rules not encouraging it. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. goodlatte: i reserve.
the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chair. i would submit that we on this side are always interested in making -- rule making process more efficient, and this is an mportant concern, bipartisan concern. the trouble is when you get bills that are half-baked and hey are sprung on the minority , and not even subjected to a full committee, and the regular order that we would proceed through with legislation as important as this, and then it's sprung on us and tends up on the house floor as half-baked as it was when it was introduced. and this is no way to go ba
reform. and i would just ask that this amendment be accepted. and there's no doubt that this legislation is not going to go anywhere during this session of congress in terms of being signed into law. my pledge is that we would work together in the future to draft legislation that improves the rule making process and not shuts it down or gums it up. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. issa. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. issa: thank you. i was rather surprised my colleague from georgia, since i am the author of the bill, i would sa that for the 16 years i have been in congress i have been deliberating this piece of legislation, so it certainly is not new. in all much more seriousness, to call this not regular order is simply inaccurate.
this has been discussed in multiple hearings, and it went through regular order with the full committee markup. so i would hope that the gentleman would re-evaluate his words and recognize that half-baked would be inappropriate. this was fully vetted and he had time for all the amendments we're hearing today at the time it was in committee. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3, printed in art b of house report 114-818. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk.
the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in part b of house report number 114-818, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 921, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chairman very much for yielding. and let me take a moment to acknowledge my ranking member and my chairman for, i believe, that this past session has generated an enormous amount of bipartisanship and cooperation. chairman goodlatte, let me thank you for your leadership, and as well, ranking member conyers, thank you so very much for important leadership you have given to issues that we have warned about for a long time, and that is criminal justice reform. i say that in the backdrop of being enormously concerned about h.r. 5982. which is redundant since we
have already passed midnight regulation legislation. the house did that earlier this year to establish a moratorium on midnight rules rather than addressing critical issues such as creating new opportunities for job growth and advancement. fixing our nation's broken immigrationcies tefment providing relief from crushing student loan debt. yes, moving forward on criminal justice reform. we have legislation that now seems directed at president obama before the election of st week, and now, again, continuing to wish to do something that impacts, i think, personally and directly, on the president of the united states, who happens to be president barack obama. because otherwise there is no real basis for this legislation. and i have an amendment, number 3, that speaks to it.
and clearly specifically says why this is a problem. it provides a limited exception from the provisions of h.r. 5982. of any administrative regulation or rule promulgated to prevent or respond to matters of critical national security. mr. chairman, if enacted in its current form, this bill would severely hamper our nation's capacity to respond to public health emergencies or many other critical public policy matters related to public safety or national security. the american people should know this is en bloc destruction of regulations that may save lives. it is to say, in your eye, mr. president. and, yes, whoever it may be because it feigns itself to be bipartisan because it says a president. obviously we know what president we're talking about right now. probably next year this will be completely eliminated.
first of all if it goes through now, it should be vetoed, and i'm sure any other president would veto t they have to have the opportunity and responsibility as their constitutional duties to stand in the gap for the american people. this would severely hamper our nation's capacity to respond to public health emergencies or address many other public policy matters. it would amend the congressional review to allow joint resolutions, disapproving en bloc resolutions submitted to congress for c.r.a. review within 60 days of the end of the presidential term. i don't attribute to any president any mall list just because their term is about to end. i hold up for you the west texas fertilizer plant blast that killed 15 preventable, safety board says, and our president rightly so in mourning the loss of these individuals, the bomb explosion, if you will, was around schools. thank god it was at night and these children were not nearby because the schools were leveled. so the president issued
executive orders dealing with this issue. i ask my colleagues to vote down this particular bill, the underlying bill, and support my amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa:00 to speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california virginia tech. mr. issa: i rise in opposition to the amendment. -- california is recognized. mr. issa: i rise in opposition to the amendment. as we know with this president the next president, president trump, and any other president, they have huge powers of geckive authority when it comes to national security. so to exclude something under the guise it would be national security would inherently undermine the intent of the rule. i always find it interesting that people internalize and personalize something. in this case there is nothing better that this president could do for the american people, and perhaps for regulations that he would
oppose in the future, than to sign this legislation. the fact is, president obama likely objects to many of the regulations that would come out of the new trump administration. there is no better time than now to reassert or allow to be reasserted the power of a congress, a congress that might very well reject president trump's legislation or regulations in the future. the reality is, although the gentlelady from texas would have you believe that this was a personal attack on our president, it is not an attack on our president. it is not an attack on our next president. it is, in fact, a law that would allow congress to reassert in an efficient way the authority which is actually, inherently, and always ours. for decades, perhaps two centuries plus, we have yielded the power and the right and the
responsibility of this body in appropriation, in regulation, and even in spending of a number of areas in taxation. we have yielded it to the executive branch. we can yield to the executive branch, but we cannot run away from our responsibility. a regulation, 10 regulations, 100 regulations, or 1,000 regulations that are disapproved by the american people and through -- from them through us, needs to be dealt with in an efficient fashion. so do i disagree with this? yes. and sadly i disagree with the gentlelady from texas' characterization of the nature of this legislation. this legislation does not expire a few weeks or months from now and is intended to go on. lastly, to say we have already passed legislation in this congress would imply that it was run through the senate and signed by the president and as a result the reform is in
place. no such thing is the case. but i would offer the gentlelady from texas in the next congress to work with her on such legislation as would be signed by the next president and with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from tfpblgts ms. jackson lee: i ask the chairman the time remaining, please. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas has one minute remaining. and the gentleman from california has two minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: i know my good friend would yield. let me indicate that the gentleman is a good friend. we have served on the judiciary committee for a period of time. i could not disagree with him more. yes, very poisoned pill bill passed out of the house and did not go any further, which i hope this one will not go any further as well. this bill is dangerous. it's a sweeping measure to jeopardize the ability of our government to protect our nation. post-9/11 of the world we live
in, the role of the government to froket its people has never been more important. my amendment ensures the federal government is not further prohibited from responding to emergencies such as the 2013 west texas chemical explosion that killed 15 people and created a fireball that leveled nearly the entire town. this legislation wants to en bloc, not separate, analyze, work with the administration, en bloc, ladies and gentlemen what that means, take the whole ball of wax, take the bag, and wipe them out. regulations that might be helping to save lives and protect the american people. i have to disagree with, again, my good friend, on homeland security. we deal with this all the time. on the criminal justice committee we deal with this all the time. i have to stand in the gap -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment to protect the national security of this nation. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california.
mr. issa: i thank the chairman. in closing, i have served in this body for almost exactly 16 years. and i have observed the extremely rare times that a resolution of disapproval comes to this body. so i think if we can set a tone for the remainder of the debate, the tone should be set in recognition that these resolutions are rare. and they never, i repeat, never in my 16 years, and the gentlelady and i have served similar time, have i seen one that is as well-founded as dealing with the safety of potentially explosive, those kinds of regulations are routinely run through fairly quickly. with congressional oversight and encouragement. i think we have to set the tone and ask how many times in any, chairman conyers, ranking member conyers has served longer than anyone in this
room, how many times have we brought these up? the fact is, even under this en bloc, it will be a small portion of those regulations created in the last days of an outgoing administration. of course i would yield. ms. jackson lee: my amendment deals with as you know many of the tragedies we faced in the nation. here's my point, it may in your interpretation i need to analyze all of that, and i have not to date, but i would say to you it's always a first time. it's always the possibility. what we're trying to do is to make an exception if that happens to occur. it might not. but we give that privilege so that the people can be protected. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. issa: i thank the gentlelady. let us continue that tone. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the amendment is not agreed . to ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. . it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-818. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-818 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 921, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. mr. issa: i would ask that my colleague consider his two amendments en bloc, if he would. i would be happy to yield to make sure time is sufficient. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: mr. chairman, just a parliamentary inquiry. i have no objection to the request of the gentleman from california. is from a parliamentary point of view a possibility? the chair: the gentleman would have to make unanimous consent himself. mr. connolly: i will do so. i ask unanimous consent that the two amendments pending be put into one for purpose of debate of the floor for consideration. the chair: the clerk will report the amendments en bloc. the clerk: amendments number 4 and 5 printed in part b of house report 114-818 offered by r. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 921, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.
the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i thank the chair. it seems this congress will close up the 114th session much the same as it opened. then we considered h.r. 185, a repeat of the anti-public health, anti-environment, anti-public safety legislation that was debated and defeated in the 112th and 113th congresses and which would come to characterize, unfortunately, this congress. so i guess we shouldn't be surprised that just before we adjourn the house majority will offer one last rethread of the social darwinian philosophy. the title midnight rules relief act is nothing more than a retread, a back door attempt to roll back any attempts to help our constituents. it would mitigate the effects of climate change. climate change already poses a real and growing threat to our children, our families, our national security and our
economy. denying it exists doesn't make it so. i can tell you that my state of virginia, we are seeing the effects of climate change in low-lying areas, including in and around our all-important naval base in norfolk. i know there are some who believe that the plan, the clean paur plan, and similar rules would seek to curb crimet change would crush the economy. but i will point out we have to listen to rhetoric all the time about job-killing regulations and the environment. -- in the environment. the fact is clean air act amendments and related amendments to protect our air and our water have in fact created jobs and -- with respect to power rates, have in fact lowered power rates in large parts of the country, including my own in virginia. turning my attention, mr. chairman, to the second amendment, this bill once again amends the congressional review act to allow a joint resolution
disapproving en bloc regulations. it leads to believe that it wains the hours of the presidency including to the nonpartisan c.r.s. 60 days takes us back to may of 2016 before we even confirmed our final presidential candidates. the congressional review act already permits congress to disapprove of regulations. this bill's nothing more than a partisan attempt to prevent the implementation of critical laws by our federal government to delegitimize president obama's final months in office. i think it's unwise. i think it's imprudent. i think just like leaving a vacancy in the supreme court for an entire year on the dubious theory that a president in his last year of office ought to be somehow a lame duck in every respect as if he had not legitimately been elected by the people of this country is certainly i think false logic, false constitutional logic and dangerous to the functioning of a republic. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the
gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: thank you, mr. chairman, i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. chairman. on this en bloc pair of amendments, i have two very different reasons for objecting. in the case of the portion that is the director of office and management and budget, my colleague and gentleman from virginia and i spent an amazing amount of time over the years looking at times in which o.m.b. makes an estimate and then the reality is dramatically different. so to carve out based on the office of management and budget, which is a cabinet level partisan appointment of the president would have one believe that it is perfect. the reality is not only is it not perfect but its track record tends to be very self-serving. just the amount of times in which c.b.o. scores very differently would cause all of us to know this is not a good enough reason for a carveout. having said that, i would look forward to working with the gentleman from virginia on both
c.b.o. and o.m.b. scoring reform in the next congress because i think we have a long way to go to get numbers right. and if we get numbers right on both regulations and proposed laws, we can all do a better job. in the case of the second portion of these two, i have to say that climate change has been unfairly made a political issue. the world is getting warmer, we know that. how much of it is caused by various things, we need to know. and i would hope that regulations would not be a source of that. but this president has by many of its own statements taken great credit for his use of a pen and a phone to make decisions related to his view of a single cause of climate change and that being carbon. the fact is i look forward to working with any president on sensible regulations, but those regulations have to be consistent with the laws passed and the regulatory options
given to the other branch. for that reason we have the ability to disapprove. so, again, i would hope we all not look at specific regulations that may or may not be contested by the next congress and instead look more appropriately at, should we have the efficiency to consider maybe 20, 10, maybe only four en bloc, all as one, or maybe in two separate? the reality is efficiency of the process of disapproval does not for a moment change the responsibility and authority of this body. and with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: may i inquire how much time remains on our side? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has two minutes remaining. mr. connolly: ok. great. thank you. mr. chairman, i take my friend from california's point about data, so let's look at o.m.b.'s latest report to congress on
federal regulation which found that the monetized benefits of federal regulations over the past decade are significantly higher by a 10:1 margin than their costs. that's their report. it's an inconvenient fact, but there it is. i will finally end, mr. chairman, because i want to be respectful of my friend's intent here in trying to algomate these two amendments. i'm sorry. this is another bill in the long process of trying to delegitimize president obama's presidency, and it to me is a shameful episode where some of my friends on the other side of the aisle -- not necessarily mr. issa -- have attempted to basically nullify his ability to function as president. and therefore, he's had to rely on executive powers in the absence of legislative action and thwarting and i think the most egregious one besides this
bill is, of course, leaving a vacancy open in the supreme court under the very dubious logic that somehow he's not entitled in the last year. that logic leads every single member of congress basically to not do anything in the second year here in the house because the same logic would pertain to them. they are lame ducks until they're re-elected or until the will of the people is heard in the next election cycle. that is to me foolish logic, dangerous logic and i think will put a cloud over the next president's tenure. with that i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: can i inquire as to how much time i have? the chair: the gentleman from california has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. issa: i won't use it all. i thank the chairman and i thank my colleague from virginia. let me take a moment to reflect perhaps on something that my colleague and friend said. during my tenure with mr. connolly, our committee sent 23
pieces of legislation to the president that he signed. we sent 74 to the other body, so if there's an enemy, perhaps it's the great bipartisan legislation that left the house and never got to the president. the president signed all 23 pieces of legislation, though they got through the senate, that -- including legislation that mr. connolly and i worked on together. since my leaving that committee, additional legislation has come through that committee on a bipartisan basis, including a huge expansion of the freedom of information act. i would hope that in these last days we would reflect on the successes of this congress and the successes of our outgoing president, because in fact, for all that we all do in the performance of our oversight role, we also have had fine and notable successes in good legislation under this president and i would like to take this moment to take note that in fact the president has
signed the vast majority of legislation that left here in a bipartisan basis, including a piece of legislation that mr. connolly was critical on and i would yield to the gentleman if he would have any further comment in my remaining time. mr. connolly: i thank my friend for yielding and i am struck by his humerus observation about the other body and legislation. i believe it may have been sam rayburn who said as a democratic speaker the republicans are the opposition but the senate is the enemy. with that i yield back. thank you, my friend. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman. mr. connolly: i meant no disrespect. i was only quoting the former speaker of this body. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the amendments en bloc are not agreed to. mr. connolly: i ask for a
recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from en bloc is on which further proceedings were postponed end. mr. issa: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question son the motion that the committee rise. -- is on the motion that the committee rise. all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5982 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5982 and has come to no resolution thereon.
the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 4511, an act to amend the veterans oral history project act to allow the collection of video and audio recordings of bigraphically histories by immediate family members of members of the armed forces who died as a result of their service during a period of war. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximatelya s
joining us on the phone. simone pathe a, were talking with the michigan contest. what is taking so long to call the state of michigan? this is the last outstanding state to be called at the presidential level. we have a lot of ballots that still leave be counted. it is a really long and arduous process it we have a bipartisan group, county canvassers who will go through each of those 83 counties to certify the results. they have until november 22. up forlectoral votes grabs here in michigan so it is not enough to swing the direction of the electoral college. host: what about the north carolina governor's race? how far is it between the incumbent and challenger? guest: it is pretty close. this is one of the most closely
contested races in the country. you have attorney general roy cooper leading. he has declared victory but pat mccoury has refused to concede. counting absentee and provisional ballots. the governor has contested some of the results in a few counties . he is alleging there might've been voter fraud. last night,y as of his campaign has filed election protests and 11 more counties alleging potential voter fraud. . host: could this go to court? guest: it could. host: there are a couple of house races in california that could be called. guest: the 49th district, people might know because it is held by a group looking member who is one of the wealthiest members of
congress for two years in a row. former chair of the house oversight committee who has been well.0 clinton as he had a chalice this year from doug applegate and that race is really close. has 48.9% of the vote at this point. isis so close even applegate attending orientation for new freshman them credit members just encase -- freshman democratic members just in case. -- it sounds like darrell issa is winning. a lot of these district and states, you have a reluctance call the race for sure the margin is narrow enough.
because either side can request a recount. the thresholds are different by state. by district, you have to have fewer than 2000 votes. it just depends on where you are and what the board of elections says. if there is a possibility of a recount, there is going to be delayed and certifying each result. host: what is going on in california's seven district? district held a by democrat who is leading by 5000 vote or 2%. he was challenged by scott jones. they got into a bit of hot water, his father pleaded guilty to illegal contributions to his sons campaign. what has made this race close is he has a lot of agates of his own. he faced allegations of making unwanted sexual advances toward a colleague. this is a close race that is yet
to be called. is in washington for orientation is to case he wins. what is going on with louisiana? let's talk about the bucket primary and what that means for about the blanket primary and what that means for control of the senate. guest: right, louisiana is one of these weird states where they have essentially a jumbled primary we have a host of candidates running for the top two positions. the runoff will be on december 10. in the senate race we have the republican state treasurer who garnered the most votes. he got 25% on election day. the democrat got about 18%. they will face off in the top two december 10.
whoever wins will become the next senator to balance the power. tokennedy one is he expected , it would shift to 52-48 to the republicans. host: >> vincente gonzalez, 15th district, for those not familiar, where is it? >> it begins from mcallen to northeast san antonio. it's an eight-county district. >> so a district if president-elect trump builds the wall would be very much impacted by those efforts. can you talk about the border issues in the 15th district and what the state of the barrier between the united states and mexico is right now? mr. gonzalez: well, a wall won't work. i tell you that. if it is i would be for it. we've done a very good job securing our borders, particularly north carolina.
the state has done a very good job. we have state troopers throughout our border region. security is much more controlled than people imagine. obviously we need to continue to improve it and make it better. just, you know, obviously a border wall sounds good, it's campaign rhetoric, but in terms of reality i'd invite donald trump to come down and see things for himself. i think he might have a different point of view. mr. gonzalez: well, we need to find common ground with the other side. i'm here to work to try to make america better and move our region forward. we have an immigration policy that doesn't work. the policy that's in place now has divided families. we have parents and children living in different countries, husbands and wives. it's broken families. it's not who we are as a country and not who we are as a
region so that's something we need to continue to work on. >> what have you done before congress? mr. gonzalez: i have been practicing law. >> any immigration cases or any of your legal touches touched on? mr. gonzalez: my cases ended up having immigration issues because a lot of people who i represented had immigration issues even though i represented mostly civil cases. there was always a time we couldn't get a hold of one of the family members or one of the relatives or families were broken because of the immigration policy that was in place. many times i would have to travel across the border to get documents signed because folks who had legal actions are, you know, beneficiaries of someone in the united states, couldn't come across and sign a simple document. these are folks who weren't interested moving here. these are folks that needed to come and take care of business. >> what is that process like, traveling across the border for you in your hometown? describe that for those who don't live on the bothereder?
mr. gonzalez: traveling across the border has been that way for hundreds of years. they are our trading partner. a big part of our community. i will say this, it has become more dangerous and we need to work on this. we need to engage the government of mexico and the state of tamilipas to make it safer than before. seven years ago and prior it was a lot safer than it is today. i'll concede that. but in terms of security in south texas, we're one of the safest communities in the state. i feel very comfortable there. >> and have you thought about your committee assignments in congress? mr. gonzalez: i have. we're trying -- we start at the top and asking for appropriations and, you know, my predecessor was on financial services, which -- he'll leave a void after he's gone. transportation is a big issue. i'm very interested in trying to implement a fast rail from
san antonio to the valley, the border area, and even into monday ray, mexico. it's a -- monterrey, mexico. agriculture is huge. so these are all committee assignments that i'm asking for and hopefully will be fortunate too. >> congressman-elect gonzalez, thank you very much. we're here with mr. budd, before congress ran a gunshop. how does one go from running a gunshop to being a congressman? mr. budd: we raise our hand, we volunteered. we had a big primary and people liked i'd never been in office before. >> you came in campaigning as an outsider. how do you plan to keep that now that you are now a member of congress? mr. budd: you have to create value for people. you say, i'm inside but do i represent the people well and that's what i want to do. i want to come home, look people in the eye and say i am representing my best interest. >> what are a few of those priorities that you have
legislativively? mr. budd: they think it's too intrusive in business, too intrusive in personal lives. especially business. i have sbrours coming to me and saying i have to reduce the size of my business and not hire them to be more profitable such as obamacare and things like that. >> so you run a gun range, you're pretty good at shooting a weapon. are you planning to use the gun range here on capitol hill? there's one that the capitol police officers use? mr. budd: i hear there's one in rayburn. i am new to the place. i'll find my way before long. >> talk to any of your colleagues about that and going down with you? mr. budd: i have been campaigning for a while. they may be beater shot. i have to get the skills back. >> have you made any friendships so far in the few hours you have been here? mr. budd: even today, met people from both sides of the aisle. but this freshman class is fine. we make great friends in the freshman class. i look forward to that. >> and your committee process,
what are you hoping to get? mr. budd: we are not making commitments at this point. as an entrepreneurial and business person i can offer a lot of value and a lot of different options, a lot of different committees. >> congressman-elect budd, thank you for your time. we are here with char low crist, a democrat who -- charlie crist, a democrat who won that seat, former attorney general, former state senator. are you the man in the room that has the most political experience in this freshman class? mr. crist: i don't know. there are a lot of good people in this class. they want to work hard. they want to try to do what's right. what's right is we work together, that we don't separate by republican, democrat, independent, but realize we're all americans and we now have a duty more than any other time in our history except maybe the civil war to bring this country together and people are counting on it. >> orientation here on capitol hill, can you describe the feeling? is it kind of like the first day of school? mr. crist: very much so. it's a good analogy.
you're learning where your office might be, trying to find out who your staff might be. it's a very exciting time. it really is everything is new. >> what advice are you giving to your fellow freshmen members and deal with the pressure prerks the political precious of being in office, if you can give one or two pieces of advice, what would it be? mr. crist: be yourself. just be true to yourself. if you speak from the heart then you don't have to worry about what you're saying and you'll be fine. be honest. >> i know your opponent, david jolly, ran on issues reforming money and politics and campaign finance. is that an important issue for you? is it something you feel like you can make changes on capitol hill now? mr. crist: i think it's an important issue overturning citizens united is important. dark corporate money in politics, we got to get that out of here. we have to return, you know, they call the house of representatives the people's house. we have to return it to the people. and make sure that they are the ones who are represented, they are the ones we're fighting for and understand they're the boss.
>> speaking of being the boss, are you prepared to be one of 435 as opposed to the boss in the state of florida? mr. crist: absolutely. i am an old football player. i played quarterback a little bit at wake forest and it's clear to make that being part of the team is a lot of fun and when you're governor or chief executive, it can be a little lonely sometimes. so this is a lot of fun. i'm really enjoying my new colleagues. >> congressman crist, thank you for your time. we're with congressman scott taylor of virginia's second district, a republican. tell us how orientation is going so far as you learn about this new job? mr. taylor: they want you to be successful, of course. i've been quite -- >> former naval seal in a district that has a big naval presence for those that don't know about the second district, tell us about it? mr. taylor: of course we have the largest naval facility base. we have eight major installations. we have more veterans in the military than any other district in the nation. it's an honor for me to be
there. >> a district that has been impacted by cuts under sequestration. can you talk a little bit about how that's affected your district? mr. taylor: sure. it's absolutely affected our district for sure. people have been furloughed, laid off. there have been problems with mapet assistance schedules, training and everything like that so it really hurts our national security. my district, the nation as well too. it's been coming back. i am here to make sure we do something about that, to make sure we protect our national security and of course my area. >> how do you make that argument? is the republican leadership in congress willing to listen? mr. taylor: i think they're willing to listen. it hurts our military moving forward. you have to make the argument, you have to make the argument you have to be able to thread a needle to fiscal hawks as well as military hawks. we have the ability to do that. >> what lessons do you take being a naval seal and now being a member of congress? mr. taylor: sure. i had the pleasure of serving with some of the greatest people i ever know that taught
me loyalty, working within an elite team and also having the ability to navigate through chaos with clarity. so i don't get overwhelmed when things are highly stressful. i remain calm and make decisions and that's a direct reflection of my training. >> what are your thoughts of president-elect trump and his role he will be taking on as commander in chief? mr. taylor: he's a practical guy. he you will see change here. he articulated what people were feeling. i'm confident that he will get people together and get things done. >> you defeated seven-term congressman randy forbes in the primary. how do you defeat -- for those who didn't follow that race, how did you feet a seven-term congressman who's been up here and has so many connections here in d.c.? mr. taylor: sure. hats off to him with his service, wish him nothing but the best for him and his family. we took our message to the people. a lot of people know me in the area as well. and we worked really, really hard and people had confidence in my background and what i wanted to do moving forward.
they stuck with me. >> congressman forbes being mentioned as a possible navy secretary. is that something you would support? mr. taylor: i don't get -- that's the decision of the administration. i think he's a competent and capable guy for sure. like i said, i wish him the best. if he finds himself in that role, then i'm looking forward to working with him. >> lastly, have you thought about your committee assignments here on capitol hill? mr. taylor: sure. the logical committees for my background and my education and district would be house armed services, foreign affairs. how far, that is plan b. plan a is to shoot for appropriations because virginia will be without an appropriator for the first time in 102 years. it's very crucial that virginia have an appropriator. plan b would be house armed services and foreign affairs. >> for viewers that don't understand the different rankings of different committees on capitol hill and the ones that are more sought after, why is appropriations the ones always at the top of everyone's list? mr. taylor: as you know appropriations is hard for a freshman to get that but i think we have a good case for your average person out there.
a lot of committees authorize what's going on, but the appropriators actually move the money around. so that is where the money, you know, comes from and gets moved around so it's a very sought-after committee. it's very hard to get. >> what are examples of those very sought-after hard to get committee? >> ners is one. appropriations of course. both of those are a committees. it's not kipcal for a freshman to get, as i said. but we're working hard to get on appropriations. >> congressman-elect taylor, thank you for the time. we're with congressman-elect faso, a republican who won that swing seat. i want to ask you, what is it like representing a swing seat, one that's likely to be targeted again? is it different for you than some other freshman members that you will be joining who come from very safe republican or very safe democratic seats? mr. faso: obviously your approach is different than a one-party district.
this fits my political belief, that it doesn't lie on the republican side or democratic side. there are good points each bring. one of the things that motivated my candidacy, i am frustrated with washington's inability to get things done and often it's because we -- the left is on msnbc and the right's on fox and they talk past each other. we're all americans. we have got serious problems that we got to solve in this country. and there's no one democratic or republican solution to it. obviously i bring my own philosophy. i am more of a small government, limited government, conservative-oriented person, but in order to get things done in this country, we got to work together and work across partisan lines. so i'm hopeful we can do that to the extent possible. i want to see us grow this economy, that's the biggest issue we face. we have to get more economic growth. and that really would respond to the economic anxiety that i think people feel. >> people say often they want to get people to start talking more and stop talking past each other. what do you bring? what are your suggestion to your colleagues as you're
getting to know each other during orientation? mr. faso: i think we get to know each other and we show a willingness to work across party lines. and, look, there are a lot of issues where you'll have a democratic position or republican position but there are positions where there is an ability like tax reform. corporate tax reform. it makes no sense for our corporation who is are doing business abroad to then when they bring their profits home be double taxed. i think most democrats and republicans would agree with that. double taxation is not an incentive to bring those dollars home. we want those dollars to come home so they can be invested here. i think there's a lot of areas on the corporate and personal tax side. we know the obamacare is falling apart by its own weight, so we got to come up with a consensus on how do we -- what comes next. so these are areas where i want to work across party lines to get things done. >> the 19th district was watched. bernie sanders got involved in your race. what should be the lesson of campaign 2016 for party leaders
as they're reflecting on what happened a week ago? mr. faso: well, i think the lesson in my district is that the most important thing is local. people want -- i responded and i talked about issues that were local-oriented. >> what are some examples? mr. faso: well, just in terls of job growth, different areas of the district. we have a large part of our district in the new york city watershed, in the catskills. but the blue stone mining industry is being regulated to death by new york city department of environmental protection and we can protect the environment but still encourage a vital industry in our area. and i focused on local issues in the different areas of the district, whether it's lyme disease, blue stone lining, hospital reimbursement rates in one part of the district. i think people want a representative to come down here and work on the national issues but they also want someone that's responsive to the local issues. i think it was a real contrast in our campaigns in that regard. >> you started in local
government in the 1970's. mr. faso: no. i started in the state legislature in 1980. >> in the 1980's. what do you bring from state government to the federal government? what lessons from working the new york state legislature? mr. faso: certain issues, not every problem is a federal problem and not every problem has a federal solution. common core is a perfect example. that was an issue the way it was handled because of the -- the state was attracted by the federal money in the obama stimulus and they rushed into this thing and had no way of knowing what to do and how to do it and they basically wasted about $800 million along the way. so some issues like k-12 education, that's a state and local issue, not a federal issue. >> congressman faso, thank you so much for your time. in faso: thanks so much. >> the house is now back in session and our live coverage continues on c-span.
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5982, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, to provide for en bloc consideration and resolutions of disapproval for midnight rules, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, a request for recorded vote on amendments en bloc printed in part b of house report 114-818, offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, had been postponed. purr student to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 114-8 18, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1, by mr. conyers of michigan. amendment number 3 by ms. jackson lee of texas. and amendments 4 and 5 by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for
any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1, printed in part b of house report 114-818, by the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignated amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in part b of house report number 114-818, offered by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 180. the nays are 233. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-818 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were post opponentsed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 3, printed in part b of house report number 114-818, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded
vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendments to number four and five printed in part b of house report 114-818 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, on which further proceed wrgs postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment consisting of amendments number four and five, offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote, the yeas are 180, the nays are 227. the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 5982 and reports the bill back to the house. the speaker pro tempore: the share of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5982 and pursuant to house
resolution 921 reports the bill back to the house. under the rule, the previous question is ordered this equestion is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5 to provide for eno'clock consideration of resolutions of disapproval for midnight rules and for other urposes. he house will be in order. will members please clear the ell.
will members please clear the well. take your conversations off the floor. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. pocan of wisconsin moves to report the bill back to the house of the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, c, put
americans back to work and make america more competitively internationally. section 5 united states code is further amended by adding at the end the following, it shall not pertain any removing employment or work force participants, especially those with significant barriers to the work force and enhancing the product iity and competitiveness of the ation. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker. s the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it become to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
mr. speaker, when i was 23, i decided to open a small business in my home state of wisconsin, a business which i still own today, nearly three decades later. i know what it takes to create jobs, good, family-support, union jobs. i know what a headache misgoided regulation can be. look, no one supports dumb regulation. there is a regulation that says it's a crime to sell turkey ham as ham turkey or with the words turkey or ham in different fonts. that's just dumb. but i also know that rhetoric about regulation can go too far and in the wrong direction and sometimes be done for the wrong reasons. last week, we all heard loud and clear that there is economic anxiety in this country, more than anyone ever imagined. while the economy is large will -- has largely come back from the crash of 2008, too many are
working more hours for less and many don't earn what they used to in jobs that have left us and gone overseas. the last thing we should be doing right now is anything that costs us jobs in this country and that's exactly what this ill before us would do today. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker. this motion to recommit is simple. we should support any rules and regulations that help put americans back to work. i think that is something everyone should be able to agree with. but, unfortunately, some in congress want to stop all sorts of regulations even ones that
help the american people get back to work just because some powerful special interests don't like them. and that means you would throw out regulations that have the ability to help increase people's paychecks and create jobs right here in america. let's face it, president obama knows a thing or two about creating jobs. under his administration, over 13 million jobs have been created, twice the number that was created under president bush. we have added jobs consistently for the last 73 months. that should be something we're all glad about and support. it's no wonder that president obama's approval rating is at 56% today. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman will suspend. members will take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from wisconsin deserves to be heard.
mr. pocan: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: hold on. suspend one moment. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. pocan: thank you. but now congress wants to take away the president's ability to continue to help the economy. ongress, which by the way cost 1st6 million jobs through passing sequestration. congress that costs the economy $24 billion when we shut down the government a few years back. and congress that can't even pass a budget or appropriation bills, the essential 101 of government. congress is going to tell the president what he's doing wrong and what he should and shouldn't do while he's still president. really? remember, the president's approval rating is 56%, and the majority's rating is about 15 to 20%. so congress is going to tell
the president what he should do even if it would cost us jobs. that's not the message from last week, my friends. people want more job growth and bigger paychecks, not less. if you are serious about stopping bad regulation, we're with you. if you simply want to stop the president from continuing to be president for the remainder of his term and stop us from creating jobs by doing that, you didn't get the message from last week. but we did. we're hyper focused on creating good, family supporting jobs, and we aren't going to stop a president who is doing that just so republicans can say thank you to some corporate special interest. i urge my colleagues to support the democratic motion to recommit. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is
recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, earlier this week the majority leader and the committee chairs sent a letter to hundreds of government departments and agencies saying, stop, stop with the overregulation of our economy. it is time to stop this. we heard the results of the election loud and clear. this motion to recommit misses the forest for the trees and the ever increasing avalanche of washington regulation is stifling job creation, suffocating recovery, and strangling our economy. federal regulation since 1980 has been estimated to have cost this country $4 trillion worth of annual g.d.p. a full 25% by 2012. and things have only gotten worse since then as the record-setting obama administration has piled ever more costs on top. now here they come again. here's the list in fine print.
over 180 new midnight regulations they want to jam through before the end of this administration. administration after administration, the most abusive period of regulation has been the midnight rule period. the last vanishing months of an outgoing administration as it seeks to cement the last pieces in ts regulatory eddie fast pace. this is the time when the pace of executive branch legislation most easily overwhelm's congress' institutional capacity to check executive overreach. with one simple change to the congressional review act, this bill, freeing congress to disapprove any and all midnight regulations in one fell swoop, with one disapproval resolution, we can boldly restore congress', congress' article 1 authority over lawmaking and the abuse and check -- and check the abuse of midnight regulations. the motion carves out the same rules that maybe -- some rules
that may be good, but we can always leave them out in the disapproval resolution under the bill as written. vote against this motion. vote for this bill. vote for job creation, vote for the new administration. and i urge my colleagues to vote for the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. stoip i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 1808, cited as the security review act in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the request is -- question sont motion to recommit. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. motion to recommit is not adopted. mr. pocan: mr. speaker, i'd
like to ask for a recorded vow. the speaker pro tempore: a record -- vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, and the order of the house on november 16, 2016, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on the passage of h.r. 5982, if ordered, the motion to recommit on h.r. 5711, and the passage of h.r. 5711, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 181. the nays are 239. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. conyers: could i have a record vote. the speaker pro tempore: a vorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, 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.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 240, the nays are 179. 2/3 being present, the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and thed or over the house of november 16, 016 the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on h.r. 5711 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to recommit to h.r. 5711, offered by mr. swalwell of california. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to recommit. 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.]
those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the motion to -- >> mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those faring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are 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.]
recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will entertain requests for one minute $speeches. - one-minute speeches. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the house floor. he house will be in order.
for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. duffy: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. mr. duffy: mr. speaker, today i rise with a heavy heart and offer condolences for the passing of former secretary of defense mel laird. who served under richard nixon. secretary laird was well known among many things for the drawdown of troops in vietnam, and to the delight of many, he suspended the military draft. but for us in wisconsin, mel laird was our congressman. a young man who was elected at
30 years old and served from the 1969, 3 to 69, 1953 to until he went to the secretary of defense position. when i was running for congress, in the late spring, my phone rang and on the other end this guy says, hello, mel laird here. can i speak with sean duffy? well, mel laird is larger than life in wisconsin. a guy from marshfield. i nearly dropped the phone. to think that the great mel laird would give me a call. he knew everyone and every issue in wisconsin at the ripe old age of 90. he passed away yesterday. and with a heavy heart, we mourn his pag -- mourn his passing. i would like to say, he was a man that president ford said was the can-do conservative from wisconsin. he was a patriot more than a partisan. so much so that he was the
mentor of colin powell and to the friends he had on both sides of the aisle, they would be tickled to know that hillary clinton once interned for him. in true wisconsin fashion, when i won the seat that he had formerly held, he sent me a wisconsin block of cheddar cheese. so, today, with a heavy heart, i want to extend my condolences to the family of mel laird, thank him and his family for his service, and may his soul rest in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the legacy of tom wise in her, the mayor of aurora, illinois. he served as a mayor for a decade and for many years before that as a dedicated public
servant and a friend to our district and our community. before he entered public service, tom and his wife served as peace corps volunteers and since then tom has served the city with passion, commitment, competence and dedication. public service is more than just a job to him. it is a calling. he cares for others in his community, like an extended family, and aurora is a better place because of it. mr. foster: whether it is the safety of rail cars passing through the city, or concerns about gun violence, tom speaks from the heart about issues that matter to our community and to our country. he does this because, to him, our community is his family. unfortunately, in the face of his longstanding battle with cancer, mayor tom wisener stepped down at the end of last month. we will all miss his leadership and dedication to our community and wish him well.
thank you all and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to congratulate the northwest advanced renewables alliance for their efforts to use the world's first renewable jet fuel made from timber harvest residuals on a commercial flight from seattle to washington, d.c., this last monday, november 14. the nara is a diverse coalition consisting of washington state university, university of washington, alaska airlines, boeing, warehouser, the u.s. forest service, and many other partners. their goal was to create a sustainable aviation biofuel, increase bioenergy literacy, and advance rural economic development. this achievement of fueling a
cross-country flight entirely on wood products is a great testament to the cooperation, innovation and hard work of the nara members. moreover, it demonstrates the forward thinking commitment to an all-of-the-above energy strategy that the pacific northwest is renowned for. again, congratulations to nara, and their members, on this amazing achievement. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. is there anybody among us here who does not believe our children ought to have nutritious, safe food in the schools and school nutrition program? i think we all do. however, you may not know that back home in your school districts, your school is using your taxpayer money to buy food grown in china, or someplace else in the world.
is it safe? maybe yes, maybe no. you don't know. so we're going to introduce a bill here, i'd seek the support of all the members here, we call it american food for american schools. why not? why not american food in the school nutrition programs, the lunch programs, in our own area, in sacramento, california, the school district there decided they ought to buy chinese peaches. yet the biggest peach growing place in all the united states is the sacramento region. so, let's do that. let's make sure that our students have nutritious, safe, american-grown food, so american food for american schools. seek your attention to this, seek your support on this, and i'm quite sure the american public and parents and students would say, yeah, right on. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: i rise to congratulate hospitals in pennsylvania's fifth congressional district for being recognized by the national organization of state offices of rural health. this year 32 hospitals in pennsylvania reached top performance status in quality outcomes, patient satisfaction and financial strength. compared to all acute care hospitals in the nation. i'm proud to represent seven of these outstanding health facilities, including kaine community hospital, lock haven hospital, cory memorial hospital, warren general hospital, and upmc northwest. in light of these and the many other tremendous accomplishments that have been achieved in rural health care this year, i'm honored to join with key stakeholders across the united states to celebrate national rural health day. not secret that health care providers in underserved areas play a vital role in maintaining and safeguarding the health of millions of americans. due to my previous experience as
a health care provider, i have nothing but the deepest respect and admiration for those who worked to enhance the quality of health care services in rural communities. congratulations, again, to the rural health care providers in pennsylvania for their tremendous work. thank you for your service. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to stand with the standing rock sioux in peace and prayer, to halt the desecration of their sacred sites and clean water source. this month an independent review concluded that the u.s. army corps of engineers' original assessment of the pipeline underestimated the risk of a spill, exposing tribal lands to grave risk. just this week the corps announced they will delay an easement for construction of the pipeline on corps land under and
around a lake until they conduct further environmental reviews with the standing rock sioux tribe. further study and a possible reroute of the pipeline is a welcomed idea. but, construction continues and there has been no final decision that could conclusively halt the pipeline and protect tribal sacred sites. this could be devastating. the government must take action to uphold our federal trust responsibility to protect tribal treaties, land and resources. they must meaningfully consult with the standing rocks sioux and all tribes before developing on or near tribal land. ruse ruse they must rescind -- mr. ruiz: they must rescind their permit and must symptom construction. i yield back the balance of my time -- and must stop construction. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: thank you, mr. speaker. saturday is national adoption day. it's an annual celebration of
thousands of new adoptions that take place every year. it's also an opportunity to raise awareness of the thousands of children that are still in foster care, in need of permanent homes. since national adoption day was started 16 years ago, several children advocacy groups, including the congressional coalition of adoption institute, have worked with foster care agencies and courts in all 50 states to finalize more than 40,000 adoptions to take place on that day. this is amazing work that helps bring wonderful additions to selfless, committed families. it's great to see so many children finding new beginnings through adoption. but it's also important to remember that those are still in need of permanent homes. there are more than 100,000 children that are waiting for adopt of family and foster care. on average they wait nearly three years to be adopted. every child deserves to grow up in a love family and a safe home. adoption is a joyous occasion for thousands of children and families and national adoption day is a reminder of how we
create more of these powerful, life-changing experiences. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it's an honor and a pleasure to be in this somewhat hallowed hall. election behind us, it's time to look ahead. but as everyone who studies history knows, those who fail to learn from history are destined
to repeat it. and so we go. we continue too tuvene repeat the mistakes of the past, but it looks like the american people wanted a change. quite a change. and i know there are calls that we get rid of the electoral college, but when one looks at the map of the united states, district by district that voted within the states that voted for the different parties, candidates, one sees very clearly that you have the big cities that were voting democrat , the 90% or so of the rest of he country voted republican. it really is amazing to see just how distinctive that has become.
south texas is not highly populated but is blue, but otherwise most the country that voted democrat is, they're just large cities, many of which are failing, many of which have become sanctuary citiesmark of which have high crime rates, and i was a bit encouraged to continue to hear statements made by president-elect trump, there's an article today by -- with regard to the government, that is, in the "washington 42 iner," by paul bedard, billion -- $42 billion in obama regulations are on trump's chopping block, that includes
nearly 50 massive and costly regulations that cost americans and businesses 53 million or more hours filing paperwork and have already put a $42 billion hit on the u.s. economy are being teed up for president-elect trump to cut in his first weeks in office. and you go through and you look, top on the list, head start performance standards. because you know, really, education was doing pretty well in my home state. back before president carter created the department of education. between 70% and 75% of all employees in the education system in texas were teachers. but when you create this big bureaucracy called the department of education, it
means for every cubicle we put here in washington, d.c., just down the street here, at the department of education, every state has to hire additional eople to work in cubicles, but some states are more generous than others, some states have very nice offices. but for every bureaucrat you put in a state capitol office that's going to respond to the bureaucrats in the department of education here, you have to have additional clerical help, administrative help, in each individual school district. that's people that could be helping our children. that's people that could be making students brighter than any other students. but what are they doing? they're filling out mountains of paperwork to send to the state capitol so they can fill out
mountains of paperwork and send it to the department of education. and to see that just one item within the department of $42 billion ld cut in obama regulations, that's incredible. at a time when we have skyrocketed over the last seven-plus years from $11 billion in debt to $20 billion in debt, just uncybill. incredible. and yet there is so much we're costing america. i'm excited about the coming year because the kind of things that are listed here, it's just government, overregulation, government bureaucrats, overregulating, and i know most people are proud when they set
new all-time records, which is -- which this administration did in new regulations for the years with regard to pages of regulations. i think the bush administration, seems like they may have hit 74,000 pages or so one year. but that created a problem for the obama administration thaverbing blown right past 74,000 pages of regulations. how is anyone in business in the united states supposed to stay in business if they have to go through 74,000 pages of new regulations in addition to the old regulations that may still be in effect? i mean it's incredible. like the heritage foundation pointed out, you know, probably most americans are committing three or four federal crimes every day. we dent know what all the regulations are.
i'm very encouraged as we go into the new year that one of the things we want to accomplish in our chairman goodlatte and the judiciary committee has it on his list of things to get ne is really address the overcriminalization that has occurred over all these years. you slap a prison sentence on some vague crime or on some vague statute and then -- that says it's a crime if you violate any of the laws or regulations and then bureaucrats sit around and dream up things that annoy them and all of a sudden somebody can be going to prison for things none of us knew were crimes. like the one go, he did know hat a substance he was sending
through the mail, since he was a seen tist, required ground only he feel didn't know only bureaucrat had created regulations that said not only do you check the box you have to put a little sticker on there with an airplane with a red line through it if you done do that you get arrested, drug to alaska where he was sending it, didn't live there, didn't have friends there, held up there for 18 months or so, i think. but it's incredible. we have got to do right by the american people. i've been blessed to be able to travel all over the country in the past year or so and everywhere i go it just seems like the economy is ready to take off if we can just get this massive or pressive bureaucracy in washington off of the neck of the economy. people will start having jobs
again. and i know some people are worried about the wall or fence but as you see people out of work, some of them being paid to apparently to riot or pick or things they do, remember one picketer out here in the mall back during the shutdown said he was getting $15 an hour. from democratic sources to picket out there at the world war ii monument. some of them get paid, maybe that's all the work they can find. how great would it be to take that picket sign out of their hand and say, my friend, we have productive work for you. you can help your country, you can help your -- help yourself by cutting down on potential terrorism coming across our southern bordering by cutting down on people coming into the country illegally, and getting welfare, food stamps, all these
benefits that other americans will have to pay for that are here legally. you can take this trowel, take this mortar, and go over there to that brick pile by our border and just start helping us build the wall. we will pay you to do that. and -- i don't know they may want -- if they get $15 an hour to picket in washingtonning they may want $16 or $17 to help build the wall or the fence down on our border but we've certainly got plenty of people who could work you see them in the streets all over the country. they come out of their safe spaces where their feelings were hurt because things didn't go like they wanted and nobody has told them, as my late mother, brilliant as she was, used to say, well, nothing is fair and
the quicker you get used to it, the better off you'll be, i would contend and she would roll her eyes, that, yeah, but we can take care of our own little part to make it more fair and that's what we're supposed to do. if things are not fair, then you get involved in government and you try to fix it. that's why i came to washington. i saw that things weren't fair up here, that the federal government was luring people away from their god-given potential because i kept having young women come before me as a felony judge in texas for welfare fraud and the cases were nearly identical, they poured out their heartsing laid out the sitchwearks they were bored with high school, somebody said the federal government will send you a check if you drop out and have a baby. then they find out after they have the child, i can't really live on this little bit. this is not enough to live on so they have another child an
another child. these are just the ones that came to my court. but i would imagine that there are other situations just like this all over the country. and when i was a teaching -- when i was teaching a joint sociology class at a predominantly african-american school back in tyler, texas, it's a great school, done so much good for so many, texas college, but there were women in there, probably in their late 20's, and when we started talking about this, i was blown away with the intellectual level of these women and their commitment that we have to fix r federal system that is destroying people and their potential. and one lady, in her older 20's, god bless her she came back, she decided, i've had kids, i've been in debt, i am going to
improve myself, i mean, this is the american dream. this is what we hope for. said, you've got to put that work requirement, you've got to make it more forceful. and another lady said, yeah, and you've got to put a drug test on there. man, i was spending my money, i was getting from the government, not for my kids but for my drugs don't just give people money like that. you're ruining them. and i'm hearing people across the country that have figured out this massdzive welfare state that was created with the best of intentions in the mid 1960's, has done more to pull people away from the god-given potential and put them into ruts or ditches from which they couldn't get out of. and yet that is not supposed to ever be the role of government. whether you look to biblical scripture like i do, romans 13, the government is supposed to be
an encourager of good conduct. help people. encourage them. direct them to reach their potential. don't lure them away from their potential and make them beholden this big master government. encourage them. we need a safety net here and there but encourage them. the sky is the limit. and get out of the way. like edison said, you know, i didn't fail however many hundreds of thousands of times, i tried to find the filament that would make a light bulb work. didn't fail all those times he just found that many ways that would not work in a light bulb. then he found the one that would. you encourage people to try. failure shouldn't necessarily win a trophy. but it ought to get a slap on
the back, come on, you can keep going, you can do it. the government should not lure people away from trying. it was never intended to be anything but a safety net so you could rebound and get back on your feet. instead, we take people off away feet and lead them from being productive in the country for themselves. i mentioned this before but i was, as a freshman here in congress 12 years ago, went to a conference at harvard and one of the speakers, dean there, i'm surprised, dean at harvard business school, and he had these charts, and he showed seungle mothers' income in the united states when adjusted for inflation from the creation of welfare until welfare reform,
from mid 1960's to mid 1990's, when newt gingrich and republicans took the congress in january of 1995, did welfare reform, i know president clinton now takes credit for it but he vetoed it, it wasn't until they had enough votes basically to override his veto that they finally got him on board and now he likes to take credit for it, they was republicans that drove them there. . he likes to take credit for the balanced budget. he vetoed numerous things that would have made it balanced. once they had the votes that would have overrode his veto, he would sign them. we got to balanced budget back in the 1990's. that's what we're going to have to do come january, and we can't give away the farm when we come back and i'm encouraged today. there are speaker and leader talking about what we're going to be doing. and, wow, isn't it wonderful
that now that donald trump is the president-elect, republican leadership is now saying, you know what we're going to do a, we need to take care of the military so we don't suffer there anymore than we already have for eight years. but maybe get that done for the rest of the year and then basically have a continuing resolution that gets us out maybe to march. so that we can come in with the congress, the people of the united states have said they now want making the decisions. that makes sense. they've spoken. let's let that congress make the big calls. and then with the new president, .hen he comes in in january what what's so great about that is some of us were -- what's so great about that is some of us were talking about that back in september and then we were told, no, no, we've got to do it for the whole year and we're going to have to add this and that, we can't just go tomorrow to march, because that will destroy the
, litary, -- go to march a because that will destroy the military, we have to do everything for the whole year. a new president's lected, named trump, and all of a sudden, hey, let's just go to march. sounds great to me. that sounds like a good idea. i would have been willing to do that in september as we were talking about it then. wasn't acceptable then. i'm glad it's acceptable now. for a new congress. when we talk about problems in the united states, you know, our military has gone -- been deflated back to pre-world war ii positions. we were not a superpower ar world war i. doctor after world war i. we weren't the -- after world war i. we weren't the main defender of truth, justice, freedom. but as you travel around the world, like i've mentioned in africa, where africans were saying, you know, we were so excited when you elected your
first black president. but since he's been in office, we've seen america get weaker and weaker. and you've got to go back to washington and tell those people there, stop getting weaker. and this was a group of african christians. they said, you know, we all know where we're going when we die, but our only chance for peace in this life is if america is strong. so many countries like to deride us and take verbal shots. some take other kind of shots -- kinds of shots. some like to fly planes closely and mocking our ships. i'm looking forward to that happening under president trump. i suspect if it happens, it probably won't happen more than once. but -- and they'll learn not to mess with us. so, it will be nice to have a reputation. you're not going to continue to
bully the world while this administration likes to talk about bullies in elementary school and send -- they like to see little kids who were bullies in elementary school arrested, threatened. well, i was a little bitty kid. one of my best friends from elementary school was here yesterday. we were talking about old times. he and i were the same little bitty run the size, so we got picked on a lot -- runt size, so we got picked on a lot. but we didn't want anybody to come get arrested. we figured out ways that we made sure the biggest bully never boggetted us again. -- bothered us again. but to give an elementary school , i n arrest, drag them in mean, kids have to grow up. and that's why we're called
adults. we're supposed to have learned. and supposed to understand. kids will be kids. foolishness can be found in the . art of a child but some say, maybe proverbs is encouraging a crime when it says , but the rod can drive it. far from them. nobody wants a child to be abused. but i know most of my friends in school, we got paddled at one time or another. and i had friends that played football -- i played football with that if they had not been paddled, i had no doubt they were headed for prison. but they had coaches that cared about them. they didn't just want to win as coaches. they wanted these kids to be good adults. so they used discipline. , folks afterrouble
high school, but the coaches saved a lot of kids by caring. id i've mentioned before that had some coaches that i loved. more like friends, even though they were adults. but my favorite year, my favorite coach, was willy williams. it was interesting, you know, conservatives are called bigots all the time. first time i mentioned that here in washington, my favorite high school coach was -- happened to be black, and i never noticed any racial problems on that team because he was rough on all of us. he was a very smart man too. good coach and i love coach
williams and it was my great honor to be invited back to my hometown a couple weeks ago, when mount pleasant was playing greenville. greenville's a lot bigger city. mount pleasant had won two games . coach williams is now retired. but i was told coach williams was up in the press box, that he did some of the -- calling color for the games. there were so many thrills there , getting to know the kids, and being with the team on the sideline and rejoicing with good plays, but they won -- apparently it was the best game they'd played, those kids have a lot of potential, they didn't realize -- potential they didn't realize. gave me the game ball.
just so many things that thrilled me there in my hometown which are group, mount pleasant -- where i grew up, mount pleasant. but, nothing more than when i got to hug coach williams. up there at the press box. that was special. but, although he's substantially older now and gray, unfortunately his memory has not waned at all. coach williams remarked, you had a great team, but it wasn't because you had good talent. that's how i know his memory had not failed him. but you guys played so well together, you know, you gave it everything, you played well together and that's how you were
a winning team. i really had hopes that that's what would happen, i didn't support barack obama for president, but i really had hopes that we would be brought together as never before, just the way coach williams brought us together on that football team. thought it was rather ironic, one of the liberal press immediately did a story on my favorite basketball coach in high school, apparently they figured, since they were liberal, well, he's black, so i guess blacks are only good at basketball, so he must have been his basketball coach. he was my football coach. j.v. football coach. before i went to the varsity the next year. ironic. who is the more bigoted, i onder.
we've become a very divided country. this article from fox news, dakota wood, just this week, points out our military's no longer large enough, strong enough, or modern enough to keep america safe. and that's why china's making moves in the south sea, that's why russia is raddling sabres and looking around them, if she should possibly move before -- if they should possibly move before a more decisive president , like president-elect trump, comes into office. so i think the world is scared for the next couple of months. are these countries like iran, russia, china are they going to try to make a move in the next two months because they know this president may send some rockets or something, may send a seal team, but they're not going to really be final type activities to really send a message.
so, we'll see. hopefully the threat of president trump coming in january will be sufficient to keep iran from trying to make a move on mecca, russia from trying to make a move on georgia, ukraine, crimea, crimea , part of ukraine, f.c.c., should be. ut remains to be seen. then, after all of the trauma by -- i justreated can't call it the affordable care act, because it's so costly. but the president was proud that it was called obamacare initially. so that's a better term. people know who it means immediately. know what we're talking about. but this article from the "washington free beacon," ali
mire, says, 1/3 of adults went without health care due to expensive costs. we were doing so much better. people -- most of the people i ar from in my district, over 700,000 people, they were doing a lot better under -- before obamacare kicked in. they're not going to be able to afford health care next year. that was one of the reasons that 90% of the geographical u.s. voted to change parties at president, because they've seen the suffering they have done, because their health care has suffered. this article says, 1/3 of adults in the u.s. went without recommended health care due to expensive costs, commonwealth -- according to a commonwealth survey. the survey was conducted in 11 countries. so, u.s., australia, canada, france, germany, netherlands, new zealand, norway, sweden,
switzerland, united kingdom. and this was all within this year. from march to june of this year. and that's what we find. 1/3 of americans, now that we've been under obamacare for six ears, have really felt the pinch. d some have felt it to their demise or detriment. another article from elizabeth harrington. obamacare premiums are to increase 27%. it points out that a new study obtained by the "washington free beacon" shows premium increases under obamacare will be higher than the federal government's projections and it points out there will be 27% -- they will be 27%, according to the american action forum. it points out that the department of human -- health and human services announced last month the premiums would in ease an average of 22%
2017. but premiums will actually somease as much as 145% in states. the american action forum found that the average increase is likely to be higher than predicted because the agency did not factor in that nearly half of obamacare plans no longer exist, forcing enrollees to switch to costlier plans if they have them at all. . en we have this, from lana chadwick, d.h.s. sued for ignoring effects of mass immigration. there's so much damage that's come from our border not being secured. and i heard one of my friends across the aisle say just this week in the press that our border, our southern border is secure. mr. trump should come down and
see it. mr. trump has come down and seen it. and i've been down there many times. i mean, to be on the border as i was just in the last month, recent months, and out there on the rio grande, it's pretty wide, yet that's still where so many thousands and thousands and thousands cross. and 2:00, 3:00 in the morning, we were on a texas department of public safety boat because texas, though they're not authorized by the supreme court to defend our borders, they're authorized under the texas nstitution and required to protect our state. they spent millions of dollars. they have these fan it's a exboats. we have night vision on the boat. thermal technology. they could see where people were hiding, what they were hiding behind.
they have other technology. when they would see people, they would radio it to the border patrol, there were agents on the u.s. side at -- along the river bank. and we reported some in, we went down, turned off the engine, and sat there for an hour or so and finally the u.s. border patrol asked if we'd go back to the dock because those people that we'd been watching, they were watching, with their technology, and they weren't going to move they knew our boats were there somewhere in the area, and so our boat went back. i thought that meant they were say, they know you're in the area, they're not going to make a move, we can't catch them red handed until you make a move. i thought that meant they'd interdict and protect the homeland. no, homeland security doesn't protect the homeland. what they were saying is we want
you to get out of the way because there are people, oh, and then there were some we could see were clearly carrying stuff that were probably drugs. and only two or three in those groups of people that were carrying groups, 17, 18 groups like that would be wanting to come across. it didn't look like they were carrying neg, maybe had a raft. so it turned out we leave and we get radio transmission from border patrol, ok, all of those folks that you had spotted, they've now all come across when you left the area, and we've got all of those in the big groups but we didn't get those that were probably bringing in drugs but we put somebody out at an intersection, thear going to watch for them. these people are not stupid. they thue the intersection they put them in, they weren't going through that intersection. our had any idea that
boat leaving that area of the river, the rio grande, was going to cause president obama's border patrol to not protect our homeland but to keep welcoming drug dealers, massive drugs, and lots of folks we don't know what diseases they have, we don't know if there were any terrorists in there we don't really know who they are, they don't carry proper identification, i've seen that time and time and time again on our border in the middle of the night, they're not -- i watched two guys, they looked at their own little xeroxed piece of paper they use for identification and they switched. what kind of identification is that? a little piece of paper with some english on it. they switched. they tnt like the identity they were bringing in. they don't know who these people were. so it will be nice come next
year to know that our border patrol, and they're frustrated, i know, most of them, they really have wanted to do their jobs and i hear from them, they are so tiered of watching their homeland be assaulted and just on and on, a wave every night and we're not protecting our homeland. we're supposed to protect this place against all enemy, foreign and domestic. some of those folks aren't enemies. they want to come in for jobs. some want to come in for welfare. some want to come in for food stamps. some want to come in because they made commitments through the drug cartels that pay the coyotes to breng them across and as i've been out there at night when they've said, well, no, i didn't have $7,000 but they're going to let me work it off in the city i'm going to. how do they work it off in those
cities for the drug cartels? they help them spread poison to american young people. they are bringing poison into our country. they come in with good motivation, wanting jobs, wanting a better life, and yet we have allowed such a massive insurgent surgence into this country -- insurgence into this country that if we don't take some kind of pause and figure out who in the world is in this country, we know from f.b.i. director comey such as his testimony is worth that there's terrorist cells in every state, that they're investigating, every state. so we need to figure out who all have we let in here? i mean, in the last eight years, and yes, it was going on during the bush administration, but
nothing like has just amassed in the last eight years. we've got to figure out who is here. even this administration had no idea who they've let in. and then when you see the article that indicates that they -- the number of those wrongly given citizenship is much higher than initially reported, this is from jake tapper with cnn, that the number of individuals who were supposed to have been deported but were instead granted citizenship is far higher than was initially reported by the media covering homeland security. on monday, the inspector genre ported that 00 -- and this is from september but 858 individuals from special interest countries, meaning countries that are considered to be of concern to the national
security of the united states, supposed to have been deported, were instead granted u.s. citizenship. the truth is, it is worse than was reported. more than 1,800 individuals, naturalized, who should have been deported from this country. reason for the underplaying of the number may been -- may have been the report's focus, which is whether u.s. citizenship and immigration services was using digital fingerprints effectively. so it goes on to say, you know, might be a thousand more, 953 more they didn't realize they were supposed to deport because they're probably going to kill people, create havoc here, and you know, with all the rhetoric we've heard over and over, we don't need a fence, we don't need a wall, this campaign you don't need any fence or wall own on our border.
wikileaks, and who knows, you know where this stuff is coming from, but i never did here -- hear outright denials that, we're not sure where that's coming from. yeah, but thear saying this was your email. did you send this email? i just didn't hear people denying the facts than in what was released. and anyway they leaked an internal memo from barack obama's 2008 campaign and it made very clear that then-senator obama believed that fencing at the u.s.-mexico border could help cut down on illegal immigration. of course once he's in office, we hear his surrogate, janet napolitano, say, you build a 10-foot wall, they build 12-foot
ladder. so what to they do? they build a 10-foot fence around the white house. after she made fun of a 10-foot fence, they build a 10-foot fence. make it higher around the white house. i asked, you know, does that fence work? ecause if et works, -- if it works we need to have something like that down on our border. if it doesn't work, then let's remove the fence from around the white house. but the obama administration, no, they clamored that fences would do no god made their fence even stronger, bigger, taller, more secure around the white house. so i know they said fences didn't work, but their actions said pretty clorely, yes, we know they work, that's why we're fixing ours up around the white house. in my own home county, november was a very, very sad time, a
little girl, 10 years old, had , was finally found, friends around the country texting, emailing, praying for kaila. they finally found 10-year-old sheriff,r smith county larry smith, reported that her body was found in a well next to a home rented by her relative four days after her disappearance. sheriff said, we assure you there will be no stone unturned as we enter the next phase of this investigation. and that's what they did. zavalay arrested gustavo , he was in the country illegally, he had been edeported for a violent crime in 014 but
because this federal government refused to protect the united states of america from all enemies foreign and -- foreign, this guy comes back in and killed kaila. that's the charge. we've seen this across the country. and i know president trump has said he's going to do something about it and god help us he needs to. in government we have a job. as an individual christian i'm supposed to turn the other cheek but when i'm acting in the role to have the government, my job is to make sure those who have religious beliefs can practice and keep their religious beliefs without worrying about some guy that's been deported five times coming in and shooting them. and if we find here in congress that the executive branch is not doing what they should, then we
cut off the money. that's what is supposed to happen. cut off the money to those who aren't doing the job and send it over to people that are doing the job. and if nobody is doing the job, then create another department and eliminate that department and get somebody, until you do protect the country. there are so many across this country that are suffering, because the loss federal government did not protect them from some immigrant who was a criminal who was deported and we don't protect our borders and they came back and they killed, raped, pillaged yet again. and then there are those who say, let's just go ahead and do a complete amnesty. this report from robert rector,
brilliant guy, from the national academy of sciences, says that the findings in the report indicate that if amnesty for illegal imgrants were enacted, the government would have to raise taxes immediately by $1.9 trillion, put that sum in a high yield bank account to cover future losses generated by the amnesty recipients and their children. to cover the future costs, each u.s. household currently paying federal income tax could have to pay on average an immediate lump sum of over $15,000. wouldn't it be better to just enforce our borders so that -- nobody lets in legally as many as we do in the united states. i don't know a single person in this congress that is a exene obe or whatever -- that is a x
enophobe or whatever kind of phobe. but it's our job to make sure that the over four million visas, more than any country in the world, handed out by our united states government go to people that are not going to be a threat but will be a blessing to this country. and to have a u.n. general secretary, the new one that just came in, say over a year ago, well, the reason there are there is such a tiny fraction of a fraction of christians that are being brought out of the middle east as refugees is because they're so historically important right where they are. we've already recognized there is a genocide of christians going on right now in the middle east, so what do we do with the christians?
the government said, we want to leave most of them there. we like what the u.n. says. let's leave them over there to be wiped out in a genocide of christians and i am saying, mr. speaker, there will be a price to pay someday for this country for our callusness. . to christians and jews in the middle east who have cried out for help. and instead of helping them, we have welcomed those who have tortured and created a living hell for them. one in september 10. suspect in brutal maryland murder, deported twice. austin sexual assault suspect previously deported five times. and then this administration has, you know, sent billions of
dollars, a lot of it cash, load up those pallets, put them on planes, send them to our enemy, iran. and we find out there was an iaea report indicating that iran the ntinued to violate iran executive agreement, it's really a treaty, but the senate never confirmed it, never ratified it, so it can be wiped out as soon as trump goes out. i know i saw a headline, he doesn't think he'll do that. i'd suggest he needs to do that. it was a rotten deal. and there will be a lot of people in the middle east and around the world, including america, who will die because this administration sent billions of dollars to iran, big nk of it just pure cash, and
this article says, iran's pressuring palestinian jihadists to resume their terrorism against israel. but they didn't just do terrorism against israel. they love to kill, do harm to americans. it's time we stood up to our oath and protected this place. protected our constitution, our way of life, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. that's basically the oath i took when i went on active duty in the army. we didn't know if we were going to be sent. we weren't sent anywhere. we were put on alert in 1979. when an act of war occurred in iran. but president carter wouldn't defend our people. wouldn't -- he tried way too late and way too weakly. -- weakly to rescue. but even in a successful rescue
-- a successful rescue would have told the world, we don't have a leader in america that will protect the american people, because if you harm us, then we'll come back and get out of your country. but we'll leave you alone. i mean this was president carter that called ayatollah khomeini the biggest radical islamic terrorist in modern history. a man of -- -- a man of peace when he was welcoming him to the power of an entire country and its military. radical islamic caliphate had been out of business for many years, carter opened the box, and once pandora's box was opened, many thousands and thousands of our american military would die in the days to come because of it. ot just military, but when a taliban, radical islamist, terrorist, in afghanistan get
control of the country, there's going to be terrorism spread around the world. that's what happens. when a radical islamic terrorist becomes the head of iran, there's going to be terrorism spread around the world and that happened. now, this leaked f.b.i. data report reveals 7,700 terrorist encounter the st in the united states in one year -- encounters in the united states in one year, and the border states were the most targeted. but andrew mccarthy, dear friend, wrote a great article, "deadliest lie," without lone wolf lie, u.s. could have stopped nearly every attack. as my friend, patrick pool, has said, there are no lone wolves, there are known wolves. each time we find out these people were on the radar of f.b.i., law enforcement, and they didn't know how to recognize a radical islamist.
so i hope and pray, as a new administration comes in, that we will finally put the muslim brotherhood, cair and any of the groups with which it works, on a terrorist watch list, stop them from giving advice to the state department, the white house, the justice department, homeland security, stop allowing them to come in and remute -- review material and tell us what we have to remove from our training material so that next time russia says there's a tsarnaev brother that's been radicalized and is going to kill people, the f.b.i. agents who want to stop terrorism will actually recognize it, because they've been properly trained to do so instead of being treated with some politically correct garbage that keeps them from recognizing what a real radical islamist is. you got to know what they're
reading. you got to know what the beliefs are. when i talked to the f.b.i. agent whose material was completely eliminated for a time cause apparently cair, named as a co-conspirator in the holy land foundation terrorism financing trial, they were othered by some of that stuff. when i asked the f.b.i. director that the time, muller, -- at that time, muller, you didn't even go to the mosques where the tsarnaevs went, and ask questions, what are they reading, what are they saying, how are they acting, to determine if they'd been radicalized, they didn't know what to look for. muller said they did go out there, but it was in their outreach program. yeah, go out there and have them ke a list, get together , be
buddieses, but don't even investigate when the russians tell us, he's radical, they're going to kill americans. send the somebody out, talked to him, talked to his mom. he says, no, i'm not a terrorist. mom said, he's a good boy, not a terrorist. and then he goes and kills people in boston at the marathon. because they didn't know what they were looking for. it's time to get back to fulfilling our oath to the united states of america, to protect this country, to get government out of the way, to create a level playing field across the country, and then let people compete and don't reward the losers, encourage them to pick up and keep going. when they fail. because like edison, it's not a failure, you just found a way not to succeed on that, but you'll find a way next time. we keep trying. it's time to wake up, protect the people within the united
states so that we can continue to be the biggest, brightest beacon of light in the world, where people will want to come, instead of the place that was once great, was once free, was once safe, but now countries around the world have travel alerts out on our cities, because we're not safe anymore. it's time to protect america and put america first, which is our oath and obligation. and when we do that, we can do more good for the world than we have done since world war ii. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. norton: thank you, mr.
speaker. first, i want to say that my colleague spoke just before me from texas, he mentioned divided country and used a met for, i hope -- metaphor, i hope it was a metaphor, for coming congress, of the coach, african-american coach, who coached a white team and seemed to be able to reconcile people. this congress doesn't learn the art of compromise, even though my republican colleagues have captured the reins of government they will still have trouble without thoughtful compromise, of getting matters through the house and the senate. so i endorse the metaphor, if that is what mr. gohmert meant. of coach williams as the kind of
congress we should be, beginning in january, if we want to override the last several congresses, which got very little done. it will take more than bringing all the reins of government under one party to get that done. i come to the floor this afternoon particularly to offer some background to new members of congress, but i must say to current members of congress as well, because there seems to me to be great mystery concerning what role members of congress should play when matters affecting a jurisdiction not their own come before them in this house. they know for sure that their own constituents didn't send them here to legislate for somebody else's a district. so how come and what does it mean and how can we get on with
he business of the nation? on november 8, the residents of the district of columbia, in an er the top d 85% -- an over-the-top 85% majority, with support, by the way from our republican party in the district, passed a statehood referendum to petition the congress for statehood for the district of columbia. i don't think they did so because they thought that either a democratic president or a republican president, a democratic congress would move quickly on a statehood bill. but it does express frustration that i believe my colleagues would identify with at not being treated as the full fledged merican citizens they are.
so, on november 8, not only was i running for congress, and many of my colleagues, or most of my colleagues, the district of columbia was in effect running for statehood. there are three ways to become a state. you can amend the constitution, you can have congress pass a bill, and we have a bill pending here now, or a state can formally petition the congress to become a state. instead of waiting for congress to pass a bill in the ordinary course of business. the way to petition the congress was patterned by the state of tennessee, which was then a territory. in 1795, tennessee drafted a constitution, passed a referendum, indicated what its
boundaries would be, and petitioned and succeeded in becoming the 16th state of the union. at the same time that 85% of the residents of the district of statehood ssed the referendum to do the same thing, i don't want to be understood, our residents have not given up on seeking any and all elements -- even ood, leading before statehood is granted, statehood consists of many different elements. indeed, almost simultaneously, indeed before the statehood referendum, they had voted for a budget autonomy referendum. you can imagine the insult to the residents of the district of columbia to raise $7 billion and then have to call on somebody
else for permission to spend their own money. so budget autonomy has long been a priority of the district of columbia, and every member of this body knows that what you prize most is the control of your own jurisdiction has over its own local budget and no matter what we do on the federal budget, they can't touch your budget. yes, they add to your budget, but your budget is your budget and our budget is our budget. . members don't look at our budget and don't know how to run a big city going on 700,000 people. but the budget becomes a vehicle the terfering with business of a local jurisdiction, the district of columbia. now, congress in the congressional resolution that is
pending has appropriated next year, that is to say the 2017 budget at the same time, i want to alert the congress that the budget autonomy is in effect and has not been overturned. it has been tested in court. the court of appeals for the district of columbia vacated an opinion of the district court that indicated that the budget autonomy referendum whereby the district was giving itself autonomy over its own budget as unconstitutional. they spent it to the superior court of the district of columbia and the superior court considered it and upheld the budget autonomy act. no appeal was filed for the budget autonomy act is still law. it's interesting that the
federal courts sent the matter to the local court. i think the federal court was telling us something, that when it comes to discerning what are the powers, the local powers, we ought to look first to the local courts. no appeal was filed. the federal courts have deferred to the local courts. so the federal -- the budget autonomy referendum stands as law, notwithstanding the fact that the congressional resolution does, in fact, appropriate d.c.'s budget. you see how there is some attempt to come to grips with this issue in the congress and come to come to at least some kind of compromise and i appreciate that. it's very hard to understand congressional opposition such as it is to autonomy that the
district wishes over its own budget. what the district has done in designing its own budget autonomy referendum was certainly not to give itself statehood. the referendum is a very moderate notion, because the local budget would still come to the house of representatives and to the senate for rea review period, just as all local legislation although almost none of it is overturned during this period, has to come here before it becomes law. so congress would continue under the current budget autonomy referendum to have the existing jurisdiction over the district of columbia and it's going to have that jurisdiction until the district of columbia becomes the
51st state. budget autonomy does not interfere as it is mapped out in the budget autonomy referendum with the powers of the congress. so why not say to the district, you can have control over your own budget if we want to interfere, we can still interfere. but you don't have to bring it up here. until this congress actually, the district had bipartisan support for budget autonomy. the last two republicans' chairmen of the government and oversight reform had chairmen why understood precisely budget autonomy is the very first thing, a local jurisdiction ought to demand. former representative thomas fors and darrel issa fought
budget autonomy. mr. issa is still in this body, as i understand it. representative davis said recently and i'm quoting him, the benefits of budget autonomy for the district are numerous, real and much needed. there is no drawback, it means lowering borrowing costs and improved operations and the district government will not shut down during a federal government shutdown. imagine that. that's what has happened several times here because this budget has to come here even when the district of columbia as always as implicated in disagreements with the federal government. if it shuts down, then i have had to take action that the district doesn't shut down with it because in the past, it has been shut down for no reason except the federal court itself because it couldn't agree on
federal matters. all strict has tried conceivable ways to get some equity, equality with other citizens. 2007 mple, the house in and the senate in 2009 passed the house voting rights act. that would have given the district a vote in the house, but not in the senate. but at least in the people's house, you would not have the outrage of, for example, this member, who cannot vote on any matter on this floor, but whose houses do come before the of representatives. had good bipartisan support. speaker ryan at the time supported it. our current vice president at
the time supported it. our vice president-elect supported it. so there was some understanding that even if you are not ready for statehood, you are not ready for the status quo for the 700,000 people who live in the district of columbia. there is legislative autonomy. the district passes a bill, it can't become law until it lies over, that means just stops until we see whether somebody from the house or senate wants to overturn a law. almost never used. i can't remember the last time it was used. and yet, that is an authority that is still in this congress. why would they want to keep it if it doesn't use it. there are other ways it can interfere rather than forcing the district through long waits to have its bills become law. hese are enigmas in the last
century and no place in a modern house and senate. i have been able and i'm grateful that each year for the last several years, i have been ble to get in advance language that has meant that even if the house or the senate had to close down, the district would not close down. so it is not as if there aren't some in the house who see why i come before you today. we believe that ultimately as congress sees that the components of state hood work, not shutting down the government, maybe budget autonomy or legislative autonomy. they will see that a new state
of american citizens should have the same rights in every respect s other american citizens. in 2014, we were pleased -- very pleased to get the first hearing ever in the senate, official hearing in the senate on d.c. statehood. it was a huge crowd and opened up other rooms beyond where the earing was held. the basis, the case for statehood was made by a number of witnesses at that hearing. the district was able to show that it has one of the strongest economies in the nation.
are any of my colleagues from states that have a $12.5 billion budget, much less their district because that's larger than the budget of 12 states. how many of my colleagues can boast for their states, much less their districts, $2 billion in surplus, which has become the envy of the states? how many of my colleagues have per capita personal income as high as ours? none. because the per capita income per person income in the district of columbia is higher han that of any state. our total personal income,
personal income per capita is higher than that of seven states . our per capita personal consumption expenditures. personal consumption, higher than that of any state. look at the growth in population with people coming in large numbers to live in the nation's capital. one of the highest growth rates in population in the united states in a city of -- that was about 600,000, more than 50,000 since the last census and giving the district larger than two states where two senators and one representative, wyoming and vermont. of course, there are many reasons why statehood is very
personal to me. if the bell rings for votes on bills, i cannot cast a vote for the more than 650,000 people i represent, though my constituents pay more taxes per capita than those who do come to ast that vote. i feel it also very particularly when we have votes on my matter affecting war, like isil, because i have gone to the floor to debate matters of war a number of times since coming to congress 25 years ago. remember, for example, district residents who , i in iraq and afghanistan was not able to votea or nay as
they went off and got the vote for those in their jurisdictions. i remember the purple fingers that showed people had voted while these district of columbia residents having gotten the vote for others came home and still do not have the vote. mr. speaker, this is an embarrassing situation that comes out of the 18th century when the framers who were otherwise, i must say in virtually every other way perfect, couldn't figure out what to do when the capital was in philadelphia and revolutionary war veterans marched on that capital and they thought, we want to make sure the capital is not part of the state and what do we do with the
district of columbia. they weren't sure. they said we'll retain some jurisdictions over the capital in case we need to. well, you don't need to. or let us say you do. there are 12 -- i'm sorry, 20 different federal police forces that help protect the local district of columbia every single day. this is a if anythingment of another era if we are talking about protecting the capital. in any case, it is impossible to lay to the framers who invebted the slogan, no taxation without representation that they met the people that fought in that war, its revolutionary war come home nd have no representation. mr. speaker, statehood has been very difficult for every state
to achieve. the last two states were alaska and roy and it took them -- hawaii and it took them each more than 50 years. it would have take an us much onger. so what the district did in voting 85% for statehood was to understand it has to fertilize on a continuing basis our effort to become equal citizens or it just won't happen. this is a political matter and a moral matter. but the two mix. so we know we have to convince our colleagues and we know everything depends on us, so that energy that comes out of that vote you will see manifest all next year. it has already raised the national profile for statehood for our country.
now many, many americans know that when they see me speak on the house floor, it does not mean i have the same rights as everyone else. my greatest frustration is that most americans think that the americans who live in the nation's capital have the same rights they do. the statehood vote and the drive leading up to it, the statehood referendum have helped many more americans to understand that is not the case. there has never been a poll that owed anything but the desire of the american people that the people of the district of columbia be treated equally with themselves. mr. speaker, congress has two choices. it can continue to exercise authority over the american eople who reside here in the
nation's capital, treating them, if i may quote the words of the great frederick douglass, as, quote, alien, not citizens, but subjects. .r it can take another course it can live up, this congress can live up to the national promise, the ideals that we all profess, and help the people of the district of columbia move toward equal citizenship, toward autonomy over their own budget, toward legislative autonomy, and finally, toward statehood as the 51st state. -- state of the united states of america. mr. speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. does the gentlewoman have a motion? ms. norton: mr. speaker, i move that the congress do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house
this is one of those bills that should not even be necessary but sadly and tragically it is. earlier this year, we learned that more than one out of three calls to the v.a. crisis hotline were going unanswered. imagine a veteran calling for help and then getting sent to voicemail. there's no excuse for that.
this bill, authored by our colleague, david young, requires that the v.a. make makes improvements so -- makes improvements so veterans get the help. we propose building a truly 21st century v.a. and this will be a priority of the new unified republican government. but for now, this initiative is good news at thanksgiving, a time to be grateful for all the men and women who have fought for us. second, earlier this week house republicans sent a letter to the obama administration asking that they not advance any new regulations before leaving office. remember, this is not unusual. the incoming administration made a similar request in 2008. in addition, the house today will pass a measure making it easier to stop midnight regulations. there is a tradition of bipartisan opposition to regulations imposed at the end of an outgoing administration. we've seen just how the impact of just one rule can hurt entire industries and livelihoods.
so the last thing that we need to see today or in the next weeks are unelected bureaucrats pushing through regulations at the 11th hour. we look forward to tackling regulatory reform in the new, unified republican government. lastly, this morning house republicans met with vice president-elect mike pence. sounds good. just saying that. he gave our members an update on the transition and the priorities for this new administration. it was a warm and very productive conversation. one thing that his visit here emphasizes, if we are committed to having a truly unified republican government, not just in name, but we are committed to doing it in practice. so working hand in glove from the start during this transition, if we're going to go big, we have got to hit the ground running. the american people voted for change and we are ready to get to work. i'll be meeting with the vice president later today to further discuss more things for the transition. questions? reporter: based on your understanding of nepotism rules, do you believe that
jerrod kushner should be able to take a job at the white house? mr. ryan: i have no comment. he was a very integral part of the campaign. he's obviously a brilliant young man who donald trump trusts. so i'll leave it up to the trump transition team to decide what role he plays. but you have to understand, he played a very important role in this campaign. and i think that should be respected. reporter: i'm asking what your understanding of the nepotism rule -- mr. ryan: i don't have a deep understanding of how they work. reporter: i know that there's a lot that you guys are trying to consider now, as you work with the administration, the incoming administration, to line, health care, immigration, keeping the government open, debt ceiling, so on and so forth. are you concerned, though, that there's going to be these two countervailing forces, where the public is going to say, wait a minute, why haven't you passed all this stuff in january, and you want to do it right, so it's also going to take some time to get those plans to get, regardless of the ground work now or even in early january. how do you balance those two things. your conference is going demand
that and even the president, because he's new at this too, might demand it. mr. ryan: we're going to have pleasanty of time to talk about the legislative schedule, the legislative calendar. congress is a bicameral legislature. we moved fairly quickly here in the house, but the senate is kind of another story. they don't move as quickly as the house does. we will deliver on this agenda and a, yes, of course that takes time. because that is how the legislature works. i think we'll be making sure that people understand just how the calendar works, just how the progress of legislation works. because we intend on delivering. and we're going to make sure that this is the most productive congress we've seen in a long, long time. i'm confident that as people understand the way the legislate prove sess works, they'll see we're going to be hitting the ground running and we're going to be moving to fix these problems for the american people as they have given us this unified government and trust to do. reporter: following up on that. when you say hit the ground running, what are the specific legislation you'll be pushing in the first 100 days? mr. ryan: we'll have pleasanty of time to talk about that later -- plenty of time to talk
about that later. we're just now working with the incoming administration on planning that transition, so it's a little premature to get into what day, what bill is coming up for vote, other than to say, that's the kind of conversations we're having right now. making sure that we plan, not just here in the house, but with our friends over in the senate and with the new incoming administration, that is just a couple weeks into this transition. so we'll have plenty of time to talk about all that stuff later. reporter: -- talked about -- both sides, president-elect and you all have talked about tack cuts, talked about replacing obamacare. mr. ryan: all those things, we'll have plenty of time to talk about later on as to when they come up. this is what our transition is about. none of these decisions have been made yet. we're just in the beginning of this. when we have made decisions about the timing of legislation, you'll be the first to know. reporter: one of the things that -- mr. ryan: don't blurt out. reporter: one of the things that donald trump has talked about is the so-called free the swamp agenda. one of the things is to impose term limits on members of congress. mr. ryan: i've always supported term limits.
i've long been a fan of term limitsism don't know where all the other members stand. reporter: -- legislation on that? mr. ryan: i'll leave it up to others to decide that. judiciary committee. i've actually been in favor of term limits ever since i've been here. before i came here. reporter: -- [inaudible] -- c.r. through march. why is the trump team asking you guys to do that instead of funding the government through next september? mr. ryan: i think the new incoming government would like to have a say-so as to how spend something to be allocated in 2017. we are working with the new incoming government, the new trump administration, on the timing of that, on the continuing resolution. and so i think they would like to have a say-so on how money's going to be spent going into the rest of this fiscal year. reporter: for any particular purpose? do they want more defense spending? ryan ribe i -- mr. ryan: i can't answer that. what they have asked us is to work with them on the continuing resolution as we described, we're going to do thank just that. i think we've got a lot of priorities that we would like to see changes relative to the obama funding priorities. it's just that simple.
reporter: how would your desire, as you spoke about the talk of a unified republican government and the desire to go big, be helped by possible return of earmarks? mr. ryan: well, here's what our members are concerned about. our members are worried that we have seen a delusion of the separation of powers. our members are worried that the executive branch, unelected bureaucrats, have been given far too much power and that we've seen violence done to the separation of powers. so, restoring the power of the purse truly to the legislative branch, so that elected officials can hold the unelected branch of government more accountable is what is the genesis of that concern. we decided yesterday that we're going to spend a good amount of time deliberating how best to do that. so we're going to be spending the first quarter of 2017 figuring out just how we can make sure we can restore the power of the purse to the legislative branch, to hold the unelected branch of government accountable. reporter: likely to have a
return -- mr. ryan: we're going to have a debate about how to do our job, as holding the executive branch oversight. here's the concern. the one that many members talk about is the army corps of engineers. the army corps of engineers is run by unelected people that do not necessarily reflect the will and the sentiment of the elected branch of government. so we want to make sure that in this opportunity we have with unified republican government, we're restoring the constitution, we're restoring the separation of powers, we're restoring accountability to the federal government. when we say drain the swamp, that means stop giving all this power to unelected people to micromanage our society, our economy and our lives, and restore the constitution. that's what this debate is about. reporter: can you sort of just lay out your big picture thinking on the fiscal implications of the trump house republican agenda? how do you secure the border, increase defense spending, increase infrastructure spending, and do tax reform in
a fiscally responsible manner, without increasing the debt and deficit? mr. ryan: couple things. you need to hold down spending in the critical areas where it's growing so fast and you need to grow the economy. let's not forget that we have been in a slow growth economy for far, far too long. we're just limping along, i would argue, not even close to our potential. so what we want to do coming out of the gates is get this economy growing. releasing the regulatory choke-hold that is on the u.s. economy is one of the first things we can do to help get this economy growing. comprehensive tax reform is one of the things we can do to get this economy growing. faster economic growth means more g.d.p., more wages, more jobs, more revenue. but we also have to deal with the drivers of our debt. don't forget that obamacare rewrote three entitlement programs. the three entitlement programs that are the primary drivers of our debt. so when we replace obamacare, a law that is collapsing under its own weight, this is a law
where people are getting hit consistently year after year with double-digit premium increases. this is a law that is rising the deductibles so high that families don't even feel like they have health insurance because their deductibles are so high. to ks law where according kaiser, if i'm not mistaken, 31% of the counties in america have one choice of a plan. that's not a choice. that's a monopoly. so this law is failing, it is -- don't forget the fact that this law, it rewrote medicaid and medicare. this law has done great damage to medicare. the ipab. i can go on and on, so we've got to replace this law with one that works, with one that works for the american people. with one that gives people more choices. and has more competition. that has a patient-centered system so that we can lower prices and get better health care value for our dollar. do you that, you fix the health care problem, you are dramatically fixing the fiscal health of this country. so those are among the things that we have to do if we're going to truly nurse ourselves back to fiscal health and better management.
economic growth, and fix and replace this broken obamacare law. reporter: would you look at premiums for medicare or block granting medicaid? mr. ryan: we'll get into all this stuff down the road when we're doing our replacement plan. reporter: it took three years to get from the passage of the affordable care act to the implementation of the exchange. how early can you foresee huge premium spikes? -- [inaudible] mr. ryan: it's a great question. that's one we're going to be dealing with all year long. this is -- it's too early to have -- to know the answer to how fast can obamacare relief occur. what we're focused on is how we get obamacare repealed, and what we replace it with, so that we can get that relief to the american families as fast as possible. that's something we're going to be discussing all along. that's one of the big topics of our transition. >> last question. reporter: thank you very much. president-elect trump promised to, quote, defund planned parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions. the republican house passed legislation that prohibitted
any federal funds from from going to any planned parenthood affiliates -- mr. ryan: we've already shown what we believe with respect to funding for planned parenthood. we put a bill on president obama's dess income reconciliation. our position has not changed -- desk on reconciliation. our position has not changed. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] ms. pelosi: good morning, everyone. we're in the midst of house democratic caucus. so, the last time we met, i was
very positive that hillary clinton would be the next president of the united states and walk into the oval office as one of the best qualified presidents in our country's history. of course we're all very disappointed, more than disappointed, hard to accept the results. ut accept we do. peaceful transfer of power is what america and our democracy is about. i'm very proud of the speech , t secretary clinton made her concession speech really comported us to be hopeful, to be positive, and to find our common ground. and that is what we intend to do. after winning the presidency, the electoral college, but losing the popular vote, i think that says to president-elect trump that he has a responsibility to try to
bring people together, not continue to fan the flames of division and bigotry. later today i'll meet with vice president-elect pence and it is my hope that we can discuss areas where we can work together, find construct -- constructively. ed a we've always said, we have a responsibility to find common ground, but to stand our ground when we can't. just left, as i said, our caucus, where from the beginning of it we heard from our new 27 democratic members. as our founders intended, these new members coming are the constant reinvigration of the congress. and it was invigorating indeed to hear everyone make a little presentation there. pretty exciting. at that caucus, that was today's caucus, we meet almost every day, that will be our intention to continue, our focus was largely on the economy. and i presented a frame to our
members for them to change, adjust or whatever, but to consider infrastructure, three i's. infrastructure, innovation and inclusion. all three of which strengthen each other. n terms of infrastructure, democrats have always been strong advocates for infrastructure in our country and we hope we can have the biggest, the most robust infrastructure legislation that we can achieve, working with -- in a bipartisan way. but we are, again, not just settling for the lowest common denominator, but moving forward with something big. i can talk more about that. innovation is central to how we build our infrastructure. when we talk about blue collar jocks and rustbelt states and the rest of that, we have to
recognize that innovation is central to how we all go forward together, an economy that works for everyone, not just the privileged few. in that regard, we've had this year more than 20 sessions around the country, one of them in pittsburgh, all over the country, though, i say pittsburgh because that's the heart of blue collar workers in our country. to see how -- because we cannot talk about blue collar jobs, ignoring what is happening in terms of infrastructure. working together. and we have great ideas from the community about how we can have success in that way. infrastructure, innovation, inclusion. again, how do we include everyone in this? this is not just about jobs. blue collar workers who may be
white. it's for everyone. everyone is feeling the pain in their paychecks. and so how do we work together on that? it's very exciting to hear how big we want the infrastructure to be, how recognizing that innovation begins in the classroom and if we're going to keep america number one, which is the goal of our innovation 2.0 agenda, that congresswoman eshoo has been advocating, you have to begin in the classroom. that means earliest childhood education to lifetime learning for our workers. it's a pretty lively and exciting discussion. when i talked about the inclusion piece, that's about including everyone in our economic, but also, to not discriminate against anyone. and we were very disappointed, naming steve bannon as ass the chief strategist is an alarming
-- as the chief strategist is an alarming signal that president-elect trump remains committed to the hateful and divisive language that divided his campaign. already democrats are challenging the appointment. our colleague from rhode island has 169 democrats. that was as of yesterday. at least 169 democrats on the letter calling on president trump to reverse his appointment of a white nationalist as his chief senior advisor. as you know, yesterday i formally wrote to my colleagues to continue serving as house democratic leader, to be a strong voice for hardworking families and to uphold the values we cherish as americans, house democrats must be unified, strategic and you wavering. those same attributes served us well in 2006 when we won the
house, and i'm hopeful that -- i believe they will do so again. we are elected to fight for jobs, for families and for the future of the american people. very exciting. i'm very honored by the support i have received from my colleagues and, as always, i say i take pride in being the head of our caucus, that is not a rubber stamp, that has all the enthusiasm that it does, and, again, just very happy to be listening to what they have to say. we will have our rollout of our leadership after thanksgiving. and that's probably the next time i'll see you. any questions? reporter: you say in your comments that democrats must be unified, strategic and unwavering. there are obviously some folks who are talking about possibly challenging you. first part of the question. do you see that as a lack of
unity? do you attribute the -- that to just letting off steam toward you, because of the election results or maybe we need to have a change at the top? ms. pelosi: as i said, without even asking anybody for a vote, i have over 2/3 of the caucus supporting me. it's a funny thing, in a caucus or anyplace, when somebody challenges you, your supporters turn out. both specialy in the caucus and -- sberbley in the caucus and in the -- internally in the caucus and in the country. whether it's supporters at the grassroots level, financial supporters, intellectual resources, to us, so it almost did me a favor by saying, before i even asked for support, that i would appreciate having people support -- people's support. it isn't that much, i have to tell you, i'm respectful of what people are saying. there's a lot of need, as people have always wanted to -- many have said they wanted to
have term limits in the committees so they can rise up. i said, if you want that, you have to go fight for it. because that's a debate within our caucus. t i don't see anything about what is being suggested now as anything but the friendship of all of us. we are family. i never said unanimity. but i did say unified. reporter: what's the difference in your mind? is it a healthy debate to have this at this stage, about who should be the leader? ms. pelosi: well, i think the sooner we can be -- have the official status of going forward and speaking, the less time we'll spend on questions like this. so we want to get on to that. but i've always -- i've regularly had some opponents. and as members said, we cannot be taking the full responsibility for what happened in the election. we have to do our after action review thoroughly and see what we could have done differently. but a lot of it was beyond our
control. reporter: as of right now, twoen-part question as well. ms. pelosi: did you get to your second? reporter: you and he my second. that's all right. reporter: as of right now, you're still examining it, but what do you think the main factors were in hillary clinton's surprise defeat? and do you think that rudy giuliani has financial conflicts of interest that should be considered when he's being considered as secretary of state? ms. pelosi: you have a two-part question but they're two separate questions. at least yours was related. here's the thing. believe that the comey letter was a foul deed. it was the wrong thing to do. i have had great admiration for director comey. i think that he just couldn't take the heat. i think this would be an
investigation and we'll figure ut how to call for that, how giuliani knew two days before that something was coming. it has been the practice of prosecutors and u.s. attorneys historically not to release that kind of information, even when they think it's significant so close to an election. and director comey said, i don't know if this is significant. it really just changed everything. the same comey who said he didn't want to put his name on the consensus intelligence appraisal that the russians were hacking, the russians were the hackers of the democratic committees and -- committee's and hillary clinton's campaign, because he didn't want to -- it was too close to the election for him to sign a consensus intelligence document. so something is not right in this picture.
and i think the american people deserve an investigation into how a foreign government had an impact on our election. and how rudy giuliani had success' is -- access to that information when he did. i think the yome letter was dispositive -- comey letter was dispositive. should we have had more fortified to be able to with stand the hit, that's part of the after action review evaluation. we could just see it and -- in the numbers. we thought we were like at 20 and trying to go for more. hillary was like this in those districts. she went like that in those districts. i'm talking from the stand point of what the numbers i have seen in our races. in terms of hillary's race, i think the minute he came without that letter, that was totally wrong. that's a two-part -- i think everybody has to be vetted in terms of giuliani.
hopefully they'll have a vetting. as you may know, yesterday, in our previous question on the floor, we were saying, don't vote for this, let us bring up a bill that says, no lobbyist should be on the transition team. no funds in this act following the legislation that's already there, but codifying that they shouldn't be on the transition team. certainly the vetting process that everybody goes through, no matter who wins the election, will reveal whether -- what his exposure is. reporter: -- [inaudible] -- is that against nepotism rules? ms. pelosi:s that that's a third question. you're next. reporter: congressman tim ryan, considering a challenge against you, we talked to him on the way into the caucus meeting. he said that we have the lowest number of -- in our caucus, since 1929, and we lost over 60 seats since 2010. he said that, speaking about you, he said, the definition of
insanity is doing the same things over and over again and keep getting the same results. i wonder if you could respond to that. ms. pelosi: i don't want to respond to. that i will say the following. and that is, in 2005 and 2006, i orchestrated the takeback of the house of representatives. i'm very, very proud of that. and as i said, we see that as an opportunity now. president bush was president, the democrats took the house. when president obama was president, the republicans took the house. so we have an opportunity. doesn't mean any guarantees but means we will do hard work. i am very prod to have the opportunity and i know how to do it to get it done, but i'm not responding. reporter: jesse jackson asking for president obama to pardon
hillary clinton. what's your thoughts on that? ms. pelosi: i don't know i have the faintest idea what you are talking about. pardon her for what? i'm sorry. that doesn't make any sense to me. reporter: on appropriations what's your reaction to chairman rogers is go to have a c.r. through the end of march and supplementals will house democrats be pushing for in terms of judgmental funding? ms. pelosi: a supplemental bill? he just said that about the c.r. reporter: are you going to attach supplemental appropriations? i know there is a war supplemental. ms. pelosi: a supplemental bill s a separate bill. the c.r. is how we go forward.
i would have hoped woe would have achieved an omnibus. democrats and republicans on the appropriations committee and i'm from that culture and we were able to try to work together and they had been making good progress until this morning on finishing up the appropriations bill. now this freezes it because they are talking about until march. i think it would be to give the american people certainty and whether it's a person getting a social security check or all the way across the board, you want some certainty. and to go to march is really not certain. but i would say this, i think they are making a big mistake for themselves. they are going to have a kettle of fish in martha they can't even imagine and too bad we
couldn't have gone to next september. reporter: do you think that democrats have forgotten white working class voters? ms. pelosi: no. reporter: what do you say to critics that you may not be the right person to able to speak to the voters? ms. pelosi: i take great pride in the city i represent of san francisco and i take great pride in the fact that the whole state of california has been the source of so many ideas, intellectual resources, political resources, financial resources that helped us win the congress in 2006. when people bring up numbers saying we have fewer democrats than before. the fact is we got our high numbers. when we had a higher number, in terms of a functioning majority, if you want to talk numbers, you
have to talk reality of that. to answer your question, the encouragement that i have from my colleagues is that i enabled them to do what they do. it's not about me, it's about them. and they have an opportunity to make this contrast between soon-to-be president trump and what we stand for. look, as far as we are concerned, the problem is more with the communication than it was with our policy. facing republican resistance bailed out the auto industry. congressional democrats and president obama at the time when op ed but is in an
when he wrote an op ed that we were interfering with the free market by bailing out the auto industry. and we did that. what does that affect? affects millions of jobs in ohio, michigan and pennsylvania, indiana, iowa. we didn't message it. i would say to people, you may think you are messaging, but if your mouth isn't messaging, we aren't communicating. we had to get that message out there. our work here for our friends in labor and collective bargaining and nlrb and osha is a fight we fight for them, a fight to increase the minimum wage. the whole country should be behind increasing the minimum wage after they heard the cry
for help from this campaign to increase paychecks. our lives are dedicated to those people who didn't communicate it on the successes we had and quite frankly. the election of the republican congress interfered with the next steps in what we were doing to increase the paycheck to stop every job initiative that president obama put forth. reporter: this is an intell question. not heavily noticed, but the head of the n.s.a., michael rogers said in public that a foreign entity had specifically intervened in order to change the outcome of the election and he wants people to understand that. the community had already -- homeland security made that assessment. ms. pelosi: that's the one that
director comey talked about. reporter: a lot of people heard that from rogers. and from where you sit, the head of the n.s.a. speak publicly in that way, how do you interpret community's to amp up this issue whether to hold hearings or empower them. when you heard hear messages like that? ms. pelosi: i said it the first day of the convention that the russians were hacking our system. i didn't know it from official stats. i knew it because we had to spend money to figure out who was hacking our system and it was the russians and it was a while for the intelligence community to make that statement. i don't know why -- you tell me, hy the media didn't say, isn't
from something wrong with this picture when somebody hacked our system and releasing emails that are only on the democratic side? wasn't that a clue they wanted us to look bad, we know it's the russians and they are leaking it and only democratic leaks. so, ok, that's one thing, but for comey then to go to the place where he went with not signing it because the consensus because it was too close to the assessed -- then reporter: i'm interested in going forward. ms. pelosi: the american people need to know that a foreign power interfered in our election. and not to be sour grapes. we all take responsibility for our role and how we got to where
we are in the election, but the fact is no matter how the election turned out, even if hillary clinton had won, the fact is the american people have to believe in the integrity of the system and it has been a custom and practice of the russians to disrupt elections, not just in the united states, but in other countries for their own purpose. and in the u.s., the main purpose is to undermine democracy and to have people who is skeptical about the sacredness of the vote. i think we should have -- and know that there is a request for an inspector general report by representative cummings on what happened at the f.b.i., who, what, when and why -- you have to talk to him about the particulars of it.
and i'm saying there has to be something bigger than that even. i have to go now. reporter: on earmarks, has something changed and whether they should be in the legislative process. ms. pelosi: i've never been an opponent of legislatively directed resources and don't give it to the administration to make those decisions. there has been talk about relaxing that for state and local government, earmarks and i hope they go down that path that they would include native american sovereignty as well as one of those categories that uld be part of any change in legislatively-directed resources. thank you all very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by tional captioning institute]
>> a live view in the lobby of rump tower in trump tower. kellyanne, senior adviser, getting some selfies. we'll continue to follow this live look at the trump tower. you can watch it on our website at c-span.org. earlier this morning, kellyanne stopped to talk to reporters and we'll show you that now.
forming his cabinet and senior staff. >> are we expecting any announcements today? ms. conway: it's possible. but right after thanksgiving. we looked at where past administrations have been and we are right in target. in 2000, the country went through after thanksgiving. he is way ahead of schedule and doesn't want to do the wrong thing. [indiscernible question] that both access eams agree upon.
ave a great day. [indiscernible conversation] >> politico among the many news organization out with this story today, director of national intelligence james clapper said he has submitted his resignation to president obama and will not ay on past the transition to donald trump. he offered this today after the panel's ranking democrat, adam schiff said he heard rumors that the spy chief might stay on. but that's not going to happen. i submitted my letter of resignation which felt pretty good. i have 64 days left and i would have a hard time with my wife anything past that.
and during the hearing, he was asked about russian cyberattacks. >> i wanted to ask you about parting thoughts on russia. you and the secretary of homeland security acknowledged about a month ago that russia has been hacking into our political institutions and interfering with our elections and this was coming from the highest levels in the kremlin. what is your assessment that that activity is likely to continue into the next administration if president-elect trump, if there is something between he and mr. putin doesn't materialize, would you anticipate that russians will hack into documents that might be damaging into a trump administration?
would that be consistent of what you know of this their playbook? mr. clapper: i don't anticipate a significant change in russian behavior. e gave considerable thought to diming out russia with that statement. we waited until we felt we had sufficient basis for it, and we did. both from a forensic as well as other sources of intelligence led us to that statement. it may have had the desired after since after that -- the issuance of that statement and communication that i know took place between our government and russian government, it seemed to have curtailed the cyberactivity that
the russians were previously engaged in. the russians have a very active and aggressive capability to conduct information operations, sokol hybrid warfare and high standard practice of theirs going back to the soviet era and i anticipate it will continue. mr. schiff: i want to drill down a little further into your comment that russian activity curtailed after the issuance of the statement. the dumping of documents didn't end with the issuance of the statement. we you implying by this that know that about the documents provided to either cutouts or wikileaks had been submitted prior to the statement being should or is it entirely possible that the dumping of documents continued after the
statement and what may have been avoided was a further escalation of the interference in the form of trying to monkey around on election day or thereafter? mr. clapper: i was referring to e cyber reconsance that we observed, state entities had observed prior to the statement. that sort of activity seem to have curtailed. as far as the wikileaks connection, evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. we don't have as good insight into that. mr. schiff: and based on what the russians have done in europe and elsewhere, what would you
anticipate they would do during the coming administration in terms of their hacking and umping and active measures campaign in the united states? mr. clapper: that's hard to say, congressman schiff. i can't say what they'll do and i can't forecast what the impact of our administration might have on russian behavior. it's speculative. i just don't know. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> senator bernie sanders talks about the impact of the 2016 election and calls on donald trump to rescind the appointment of steven banon. he is questioned by e.j. dion of the "washington post."
senator sanders: thank you. [applause] senator sanders: let me thank all of you for coming out. quite -- can't quite see you. thank you for coming and i look forward to chatting with e.j. in a few moments. before we do, i just wanted to say a few words about the election and where we are today. as i know, there are a lot of people who are frightened, a lot of people who are extremely unhappy, and i would not be telling you the truth if i didn't tell you the truth that tuesday night was a very, very depressing evening for me. but i want to maybe begin by telling you that as a result of
having the privilege and the opportunity of running all over this country, going to 46 states during my campaign, i ended the campaign far, far more optimistic than when i began that campaign. and the reason for that is that all over this country, i saw extraordinarily beautiful people, working people, young people, who love this country and who are determined to do everything that they can to make the united states of america the kind of nation we know we can become. cheers and applause] senator sanders: and the other point that i want to make as we move into the trump era, is to understand that real change and real politics never takes place from the top on down.
it always occurs from the bottom on up. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: and what that means, in my view, is that when millions of people stand together and they refuse to allow demagogry to divide us up by race, by the country we were born in, by our sexual orientation, when we stand together by the millions, we can stop mr. trump or anyone else by doing bad things to this country. cheers and applause] senator sanders: as lisa just mentioned when i have always believed is that election days
are very, very important days, to be sure and elections are enormously important, but politics is not just about election. if you think about our history as a nation and the profound changes that are taking place, what you understand is that change only takes place when millions of people look around them and they say that the status quo is not working and are prepared to fight for social, racial, economic and environmental justice. cheers and applause] senator sanders: in terms of the election, i want to make three points. number one, in case you don't know and i'm sure most of you do, hillary clinton ended up
winning the popular vote by what we think after all the votes are counted, by about two million votes. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: number two, if you are a progressive on issue after issue, whether it is raising the minimum wage to a living wage, whether it is pay equity for women, whether it is rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and creating millions of decent-paying jobs and reforming a broken criminal just ties system or a broken immigration system, whether it is making public colleges and universities tuition free and making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, on all those issues and more, the american people are on our side. don't ever forget that.
cheers and applause] senator sanders: now during the course of his campaign, mr. trump -- and i should tell you, in that campaign, i was as active as i could be during the last week of that campaign. i was in 128 battleground states giving -- 12 battleground states giving speeches because i thought it was imperative to do everything we can to make sure that hillary clinton was elected and donald trump and it didn't turn out that way. here is where we are. it seems to me, three things, four things, five things, who knows. during the course of his campaign, which clearly -- and we have to acknowledge this, was
certainly one of the most unusual campaigns ever run by a candidate. mr. trump said a whole lot of things, a whole lot of things and sometimes they would just come off the top of his head. [laughter] senator sanders: towards the end of the campaign, he was actually use the term that democrats use. he said he was going to be the champion of the american working class. that's what he said. well, mr. trump, we have a list of everything that you said. and we are going to hold you to account. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: and what i think mr. trump did, and this speaks to why i personally believe we need major, major reforms of the democratic party -- cheers and applause]
senator sanders: what mr. trump said and talked about is something that the pundits here in washington have not a clue about and the corporate media has very little understanding about, and that is that what he understood to be true and it is true, is despite the fact that today, we are far, far better off economically after eight years of obama than we were when bush left office and that is true, there is another reality and that is all across this country, there are millions and millions of decent, good people, who are frightened about the world that they are living in. there are mothers out there, single moms or young couples who e making $30,000, $40,000,
$50,000 a year and need child are and child care costs $10,000, $15,000, how do you afford that when you are making $40,000, $50,000 a year. there are workers in my state who see an explosion in technology and see the wealthiest people in this country becoming phenomenally richer and corporations enjoying record-breaking profits and working at not only one job, but working at two jobs and three jobs. there are people all over this country who are 55, 60 years of age. they have worked their entire life, and now they are going to be retiring soon, and you know what? half of those older workers do not have a nickel in the bank
for retirement. there are young people who went deeply into debt, $80,000 in debt in order to go to college, but when they leave school, they find that the only jobs they can get are jobs which pay them 12, 14 bucks an hour, not enough to repay their debt. that is the reality for millions of people in this country. and that is the reality of a middle class which has been in decline for the last 40 years. that is the reality of 43 million fellow americans who today are living in poverty, something that we do not talk about at all, not mentioned on television. and some in dire poverty. we are living in a nation which as a grotesque of level of
income equality where the top one-tenth of 1% owns all the wealth. and mr. trump said i hear you are hurting and i hear and i understand you are worried about the future for your kids and i alone can do something about it and people voted for him. let me just tell you some of what mr. trump talked about. and we are going to hold him accountable. mr. trump said -- cheers and applause] senator sanders: mr. trump said, unlike many republicans, the vast majority of the republicans, he said, he will not cut social security, medicare and medicaid. now i believe we should expand social security.
i believe in medicare for all program. but that is what he said. and pay attention to see what he now does. the question that will be resolved pretty quickly is whether or not everything that he was saying to the working families of this country was hypocrisy, was dishonest or whether he was sincere and we will find that out soon enough. number one, no cuts, says mr. trump, to social security, medicare and medicaid. mr. trump says he wants to invest a trillion dollars in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. that is a good sum of money. that is exactly what we should be doing and we can create millions of good hive paying jobs. mr. trump, that's what you said on the campaign trail. that's what we look forward to seeing from you.
[applause] senator sanders: now i happen to believe that the federal minimum wage of $7.25 wage is a starvation wage and should be increased to $15 an hour, a living wage. [applause] senator sanders: mr. trump did not say that, but what he did say is raise the minimum wage to 10 bucks an hour. not enough but a start and we will hold him to those words. he said wall street, he wants to establish legislation. i look forward to working with him. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: mr. trump said he wants six weeks of paid maternity leave. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: well, every
other major country on earth has i think at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. but this is a start. we look forward to working with him if he is honest. mr. trump said throughout the campaign, he wants to change our disastrous trade policies and somebody who swroted against every one of these trade policies, i look forward to working with him to make that happen. [applause] senator sanders: so i think what you will see on capitol hill is many democrats will be prepared to work with mr. trump if he turns out to be sincere about the promises he made during the campaign. if those promises turn out to be hollow, if they were nothing more than campaign rhetoric, we
will not only oppose his economic policies is, we will expose those -- that hypocrisy as well. [applause] senator sanders: but there is an area where i -- and i think i can speak for virtually every member of the democratic caucus will not be working with mr. trump. we will not be involved in the expansion of bigotry, of racism, sexism, homo phobia. [applause] [applause]
appointment that he made of mr. banon. cheers and applause] senator sanders: a president of the united states should not have a racist at his side. unacceptable. [applause] senator sanders: there is another area which concerns me very much. and that is despite virtually all of the scientific evidence, mr. trump throughout his campaign proclaimed that his view is that climate change is a hoax created for whatever reason in china. couldn't figure that out. and i say to mr. trump, climate
change is not a hoax. is the great plan tear -- planet area crisis that we face. and if we do not act boldly to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, the planet that we will be leaving to our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will be far less healthy inhabitable than the one that we have today. and this is an issue in which millions of americans and people all over the world -- not only an american issue but a global issue because if the united states backs down and gives up on the efforts to combat climate change all over the world, china, russia, india, other countries are going to say why are we transforming our energy
system. look at america, they are not doing it. mill crons of americans have to stand up and tell mr. trump to read a little bit about science. [laughter] cheers and applause] senator sanders: to start listening to the scientific company and not the c.e.o.'s of the fossil fuel industry. cheers and applause] senator sanders: let me read a few words, a couple of pages in order to get the discussion going from the very beginning, the introduction to the book. and this is what i wrote. when we began our race for the
presidency in april of 2015, we were considered to be a fringe campaign, something not to be taken seriously. after all, i was a senator from a small state with very little name recognition. our campaign had no money, no political organization and we were taking on the entire democratic party establishment, and by the way, we were running against the most powerful political operation in the country. the clinton machine had won the country for bill clinton twice and almost for hillary clinton in 2008. when our campaign finally came to a close in july of 2016, it turns out that the pundits hod got it wrong, big time. we had made history and won one of the most consequential campaigns in the modern history of the country, a campaign that would in a profound way change
america. we received more than 13 million votes in primaries and caucuses throughout the country and won 22 states, more than a few by landslide proportions and won 1,846 pledged delegates, 46% of the total. importantly, in virtually every state, we won a strong majority of younger people, the future of america. we won large percentages of the vote from white, black, latino, asian-american and native-american youth. we set the agenda for the america of tomorrow. thank you. [applause]
cheers and applause] >> love you, bernie. >> love you, too. e.j.: it's a great honor to be here at g.w. with senator sanders and an event that is organized which is not just a book store but a great institution. if you are in a bernie sanders' crowd, a community organization and what they do to organize public discussion and public debate is extraordinary. and i'm very happy to be here for that. but this is a grave and serious moment and i'll get to this, senator sanders and his book has really nice things to say about the media, about its tendency to
-- senator sanders: you're kidding. e.j.: and it's tendency to focus on side issues and because it is a grave issue and because you have written this book, there are a few moments in the beginning of the book about yourself that i didn't know and that i think people in the audience as they approach the book might be interested in knowing. i did not know, for example, that the boy scouts made your political career possible in a manner of speaking. and i just love you -- i want to ask a couple of things about your early life. [laughter] e.j.: i want to ask a couple of things about your early life. the boy scouts' story is wonderful. for every student athlete, bernie sanders got cut from his high school basketball team. they were influenced by the
corporate media. but you went on to become a track star, a runner. curious and as this you have in common with president obama, you are a democratic socialist, but you are a very competitive person. and i would like you to talk about those two experiences and i have one other early life experience before we get to the other questions. by the way, thank you all. i went through hundreds of questions. you have asked excellent questions and i tried to lump some of them together in categories and there are some i will ask specifically. the boy scouts, basketball, running and sports. senator sanders: i grew up in brooklyn, new york. some of you have heard of brooklyn. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: and i grew up in a lower mid-class neighborhood and lived in a
rent-control apartment and my family didn't have a lot of money. and what i mentioned in the book which had a profound impact and one way the world has changed not necessarily for the better. we would go out into the street and school yards and play ball from morning to night. and we did it all ourselves. we didn't have any coaches or referees. we worked it all out. and as i think about it in retrospect, it had been a very democratic -- you couldn't bull-- anybody else. everybody knew it. there was no argument about it and we worked it out if you are first base, second base, who brought the ball, punch ball, baseball or basketball and it was a means of young people working out things so they could play actively and fairly choose up their teams and decides who wins or loses ffment we are
playing basketball, a three-man game. my team goes and another team comes in. everybody understood the rules it was interesting and very much a democratic a-- approach to how we do things. our family didn't have a locality of money and in the summertime my parents would send my brother and me to boy scout camp. and we went up there and i said my god, look at this, this is the country, there are stars in the night. who knew that. [laughter] senator sanders: and we slept in lean twos which were small structures without any doors. the mattresses were literally hay put into sheets. it was a presumptive way of living but i loved it. i really did. and that was my first
introduction to rural life and certainly influenced my decision early on to move to the state of vermont. e.j.: senator sanders, i ran the to run 37 fast enough the new york city mile indoor championship. [applause] e.j.: you talk about a group of organizations you joined when you were in college and talk about the student peace union and the congress for racial equality. in the book, you don't actually talk about why you joined the young people socialist league. what was it about that where most americans did not think themselves as democratic socialists. i guess not many do now but more
than then. what made you join ipis linch. >> you are asking how do we become the people we become. ever since i was a little kid, i did not like to see bullies or stronger kids picking on weaker kids. i didn't like discrimination. i didn't like that. power plays on the part of people who had the power. that was it. and as a kid, i felt strongly about racism. and poverty and when i went to the university of chicago, i was not a good student, but what i did do is spend an enormous amount of time down in the stacks of the library and i would bury myself in there reading everything i could read about history and politics and
sociology and economics and psychology. i did a whole lot of reading. i wasn't a good student, let's say that, but i did a whole lot of reading. young people socialist league did for me helped me put two-and-two together. we don't poverty, racism, war, we don't like exploitation, what do they have in common? people say i'm against poverty, but why, for example at a time when we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world, why do we have 43 million people living in poverty? why do we have such an unfair distribution of wealth and income. what does wealth and power mean? how does it influence politics? money always played a dominant role, a very important role in who gets elected. since citizens united, it is far worse. who knows why we want to war in
world war i. what was that about? who makes these decisions? so what my studies tried to do -two two-and-two-and together. i evolved to an analysis which tries to explain to me why what goes on in the world today. e.j.: one other thing i noticed in the book in the personal terms is you come back to clothing a number of times. and one of the first crisis you faced when you were elected mayor of burlington and i quote was purchasing clothing suitable to the mayor. at the time, i didn't own a cuordoroysone or two and wasn't my intention to become the best suit. a little sprucing wouldn't.
overnight, my wardrobe doubled in size. senator sanders: that is perfectly true as the people of burlington, vermont and i had the distinction of being named to be the worst dressed member of the united states senate. [laughter] cheers and applause] senator sanders: and all i can say, if you think i'm badly dressed now -- [laughter] e.j.: i like button-down shirts myself. let me move to the political a little bit and this will move us to the questions. when you talk in the book about thinking of running for president, you have some interesting things to say about
mrs. clinton. on the one side you talk about an experience you had about explaining her health care program and you write she knew that program back and forward and answered questions, and 25 years later -- and this is when president clinton was trying to pass health care reform. and 25 years later, i marvel of that performance and you are critical of her on the same page. the clinton approach was to merge the the clinton approach was to try to merge the interests of wall street and corporate america with the needs of the american middle class at impossible task. while the clinton administration can boast some ositive accomplishments, i supported bill clinton, there were major policy flaws. tell me about -- after this is all over, what is your attitude toward the clintons, toward the politics, and toward mrs. clinton at this -- at the end of this campaign?