tv U.S. House Meets for Legislative Business CSPAN April 27, 2017 3:00pm-5:43pm EDT
>> we go back live to the house. the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1694. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1694. the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to require additional entities to be subject to the requirement of section 552 of title 5, united states code, commonly referred to as the freedom of information act and for other purpose. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 115-96 offered by the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, had been disposed of. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 115-96, offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number printed in house report 115-96 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the nays are 5. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor will vote aye of. those opposed will vote no. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. mr. chairman. the chair: committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1694 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopt the in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1694, pursuant to house resolution 280 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on
any amendments to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole. if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as meanded. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment greed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have t third reading. the clerk: a bill to require additional entities to be subject to the requirements of section 552 of title 5 united states code commonly referred to as the freedom of information act, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: 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 aye vs. it. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. clay: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , this five-minute vote on passage will be followed by a five-minute vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote.
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 425 the nays are zero, the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the 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.]
are 163. with two answering present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as co-sponsor of h.j.res. 50. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection the gentleman s recognized for one minute.
the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. olson: mr. speaker, uncle sam is is going hunting for russian bear. world war ii started with nazi germany invading poland. russia quickly invaded for the west to take their chunk of poland's freedom. years later we won the cold war and poland joined nato. but poland has never been truly free because mr. putin, mother russia, has controlled poland's energy.
mr. putin has punished poland by selling natural gas exports in a cold polish winter that ecame much, much colder. uncle sam is about to put the russian bear on permanent hibernation by exporting american liquid freedom. our liquefies natural gas will leave the pass in june heading to poland. the russian bear is on the run. let american liquid freedom reign. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new jersey seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the hard work of the youth in the
new jersey 129 district. mrs. watson coleman: this past weekend a group of high school students were recognized as the best team from the northeast in the we the people competition, competing against more than 1,200 students, this team demonstrated knowledge of constitutional principles in both historical and contemporary context. this weekend students from john witherspoon middle school of princeton and plainsboro high school will come here to washington to compete in the final round of the 2017 national science bowl. to all of these students, to e guidance of your teachers, alan, bill, and all of your hard work, it is evident and new jersey's 12th district is very proud of you. it is an honor to represent a district that continues to emphasize the importance of stem and civic education and encourage our nation's youth to
thrive. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the house will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the house floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to mark the first 100 days of president trump's administration. mr. bigs: in his first 100 days he's enacted more pieces of legislation than any other president since truman. facilitated the early supreme court confirmation since 1881, eliminated onerous regulations to restore economic optimism and opportunity, protected the sanctity of life, and driven illegal border crossings to a 17-year low. these accomplishments are truly remarkable. i have appreciated president trump's willingness to listen and work with congress own major pieces of legislation. his effort to work with congress is a breath of fresh
air. president trump made several promises to the american people. and i am encouraged by his efforts to fulfill them. the american people are watching, mr. speaker. they are watching both the president and those of us in congress. they will not accept broken promises or halfhearted measures. they want results i look forward to working alongside president trump to keep our promises. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman yields. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the president made big promises on the campaign trail to drain the swamp. he promised that his washington would look different. well, it does look different. but not in the way he promised. mrs. demings: instead of ethics reform his administration rolled back ethics provision that is spreented officials from serving in federal agencies that they lobbied in the last two years.
he promised to tackle campaign finance saying he wouldn't accept campaign donations from special interest groups. instead, he has visited the special interests, invited him into his cabinet, appointed them to the highest position. he promised he would ask congress to pass campaign reform finance -- campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in american politics. instead it turns out that some of his closest confidantes and former campaign advisors were made millions lobbying foreign governments. he promised he would release his own tax returns, but has not and the american people have no way of knowing how he or his family businesses stand to benefit from these tax cuts. mr. speaker, this is not draining the swamp. everyone is accountable. especially those in the highest levels of our government. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back.
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition 1234 >> mr. speaker, i would like to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate darlene johnson of woodland washington on being dominate neathed for two women in transport awards by 2017 by transport news international. she was given these well deserved awards for best woman owned land logistics company in the northwest and most inspirational woman in land transport in the western u.s. throughout her career she's done everything in her power to serve her community. she currently sits on the woodland chamber of commerce board of directors where she advocates stronger environment for business and southwest washington. ms. herrera beutler: she mow ates and inspires those around her. she's a local business owner herself and it's fitting thee receive this award for
successfully running a business in an industry commonly thought to be male dominated. those who know darlene like i do if she were to start a business in any other industry she would go over, under, and right through any obstacles in her way. darlene's service does not go unnoticed. there is not an issue affecting the community she's not actively involved. she's currently receiving this award on behalf of southwest washington i congratulate her and wish hert best and continued success in transportation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i rise to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. mr. speaker, president trump campaigned throughout this country, including my home state of pennsylvania, as a great cop pewlies, as a champion -- great populist, as
a champion of the working class. i want to thank president trump and his administration for revealing their true intentions yesterday when they revealed their wall street written and designed tax plan. mr. boyle: a give away for millionaires and billionaires nd not one thing, not one, for 99.9% of the working american people. mr. speaker, we do need tax reform and you would see broad bipartisan support for that. but it has to be real. it has to be paid for. and it must include relief for those three quarters of the american people who pay more in payroll taxes than they ever do in individual income taxes. enough of focusing on wall street and the corporate income tax rate and let's start focusing on main street and american workers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition?
>> ask 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. speaker, as president trump and republicans in congress work toward finally delivering the american people relief from obamacare, it is important to remember how we got here and why we find ourselves in this position today. we're approaching the fork in the road for health care in our country. we have a choice of two paths and they lead to very different outcomes. mr. rothfus: obamacare's regulatory behemoth is collapsing the individual market and paving the way towards a disastrous result. namely socialized medsifpblet the crowded waiting rooms, scarce access to physicians, and low quality health care that comes with it not to mention an unprecedented accumulation of power in washington, d.c. this is not conjecture. barack obama, harry reid, and a whole host of obamacare supporters have been candid about their ultimate goal of a single payer health care system
which could devolve into socialized medicine. the time to right our course is now. the republicans are offering the people a better way one that fosters choice, lowers health care costs and improve outcomes. we have two clear and very distinct options. make the right choice and pull bank from the prink of socialized medicine. i thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. the last four elections have defined one of the most dramatic political realignments in our country's history. in these elections we have seen a net shift of 64 u.s. house seats, 12 u.s. senate seats, 10 governors, 919 state
legislative seats, and the presidency shift from democrats to republicans. this happened in large part on three overarching mandates from the american people -- revive the economy, secure our borders, and restore our health care system. if president trump can accomplish these three objectives, his administration and this congress will be remembered as one of the most successful and beneficial in our nation's history. in working toward these goals, president trump has faced the most bitter, and partisan opposition that any president has endured since the election of 1860. we have seen the radical left unfold -- on full display across our nation with its appalling incivility, it's intolerance of other points of view, and disrespect of our democratic process and our constitutional institutions. sadly this opposition now permeates much of our press and academia.
yet despite these obstacles, as we mark the first 100 days of this presidency, there is ample reason to celebrate the new direction that president trump and this congress have taken and the progress that we have made. our overarching mandate is to revive our economy and restore prosperity to millions of struggling american families who have suffered the most disappointing decade in more than 80 years buried under a avalanche of obama-era regulations and taxes. american workers finally have an advocate in the oval office. this president has signed more legislation in his first 100 days than any president since harry truman, and many of these bills, as well as his executive orders, have begun repealing the heavy regulations that have been sinking our economy. one study estimates these actions have already relieved our economy of $68 billion of destructive regulations. that comes to about $500 for
every family in america. the keystone pipeline alone will produce thousands of construction jobs, billions of dollars of private investment, and when completed, 830,000 barrels of canadian crude oil entering american markets every day. and what's happened? well, consumer confidence is up three points since the election. the s&p is up 11%. the nasdaq up more than 15%. the dow up 13%. 317,000 more americans are working today than on the day the president took the oath of office. unemployment has dropped .3 points and the labor participation rate has started to inch upward once again. it's not yet morning again in america, but the first faint shades of light are appearing on our economic horizon. the second great mandate was to secure the borders after many years when millions of illegal
immigrants made a mockery of our nation's sovereignty and our rule of law. wages for working americans stagnated, jobs dried up, and social services strained as a rufment finally we have a president who takes the nation's security and the sovereignty of our borders seriously. renewed enforcement is by all accounts boosted morale of our immigration agencies dramatically and criminal aliens are finally being deported. already showing a 32% increase in deportations compared to the last administration. because of this new resoluteness, illegal border crossings have plunged by some 60%. now, health care reform is the third of the mandates, that requires congressional action and here is where the congress has let him down. but as we approach the 100th day of the administration, it appears legislation will soon begin moving to the senate and before long the collapsing one-size-fits-all bureaucracy
of obamacare will give way to a healthy and vibrant health care market where americans will have the widest possible range of choices to meet their own needs with a supportive tax system to assure these plans are within the financial reach of every american. ultimately, though, the success of this administration will not be measured by 100 days or by talking points from politicians. it will be measured by a simple question that every american will answer for him or herself -- am i better off today? as we approach this first checkpoint in the course of this administration, there's strong reason to believe the answer to that question will be a decisive yes. this is a period of great change, and great change brings great controversy, but i believe this president and our nation can take increasing confidence from these first 100 days and can take great strength in knowing that a day is fast
approaching when we will awaken and realize it is indeed morning again in america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for the remainder of the hour as designee of the majority leader. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate you yielding the time and being willing to stick with me this afternoon. i have a great pleasure this afternoon and that is to talk about successes that we've had together. i was down on the floor earlier. we were debating the rule. i was talking to my democratic colleague on the rules committee about the good work that was going on in the rules committee, the good work that was going on
the house floor. we brought the big. it was a rukus debate, mr. speaker. as you remember we argued for about an hour about all sorts of extraneous things and we brought the bill down and it passed i believe unanimously here on the floor of the house just a few minutes ago. i don't understand that. i just don't understand what those drivers are in politics, mr. speaker, that encourages us to tear folks down and instead of build folks up and that's why i want to talk about some successes today. you can't see my slides, mr. speaker, but i got some numbers written down the left in red and those are the numbers worth paying attention to. 28. 28 is the number of bills president trump has signed into law in his first 100 days. 28. that's more bills signed into law than any other american president since harry truman. more bills. now, i read the same newspapers you read, mr. speaker. i listen to the same news broadcasts you listen to. i hear folks talk about
inaction. i hear folks talk about confusion. i hear folks talk about division. i don't hear folks talking about success, and success is what marks these first 100 days, again, more legislative activity than any other president and congress collaboratively congress, house, senate, republicans, democrats, more legislative success than we've had in any congress and white house combination since harry truman. first, mr. speaker. first supreme court confirmation .he first 100 days since 1881 since 1881. now, it is with no joy that i share with you that the supreme court is such a powerful institution, mr. speaker. i think too often we fail to get the job done legislatively and the court steps in and legislates right across the street. that wasn't the job the constitution envisioned. that wasn't the job assigned in article 3, but it is the job
that's been taken on by default so it's become increasingly important that we make sure the court is staffed. i supported the senate having hearings on the garland nomination the last cycle. i supported the senate having the gorsuch nomination this cycle. it went 4-4 which meant we could sustain the underlying court's decisions but we couldn't decide the issues. we now have a fully staffed supreme court once again. first time since 1881 we've seen a supreme court confirmation the first 100 days of a new administration. 17, mr. speaker. 17 years since illegal border crossings reached this low level. i am going to come back to that. i am going to come back to that, but what i'm saying is words matter and what the president has said is we are going to grow the most robust economy the
world has ever seen but we are going to do it with a legal visa program to make sure folks are coming and going in accordance with u.s. law and simply that change in attitude, mr. speaker, simply that change in attitude from we're going to ignore the law to the law matters has brought illegal crossings down to a 17-year low. 728, mr. speaker. that is the number of millions the llars saved with president's first foray in the cutting of federal budgets. he started taking a look at federal contracts. can you imagine, mr. speaker, what it's like to be a new president of the united states, particularly one that doesn't come out of a legislative or government tradition? everything is new as it comes to the content. but what's not new is so much of the process. the president has been looking at contracts his entire life,
mr. speaker. the president's been negotiating contracts his entire life. he took a look at the beginnings of the pentagon contracts and said, by golly, we can do better for the american people. $728 million on project number one saved for the american taxpayer. which brings us to number 16, mr. speaker. and that's 16 years since consumer confidence in this country has been as high as it is today. i enjoy traveling across the district, mr. speaker, and i'm talking to folks. we are a divided community like every community is in the country. some folks believe one thing. some folks believe in another. generally we are united on issues, but sometimes we are divided on issues, and voter after voter after voter says, rob, i'm not sure what's going to happen but i feel like we're going to have opportunity. opportunity. 16 years since consumer confidence has reached this high of a level.
now, with that increase in confidence, mr. speaker, comes an incredible obligation on the 435 of us to deliver. this isn't confidence that's based on nothing happening. this is confidence based on something happening. we have real obligations to fulfill those promises, those commitments that we all made during the last election cycle. i think we have the men and women in this chamber who can do it, but it's been 16 years since the american people believed that we did. i want to put those border crossings in perspective, mr. speaker. 61% decline in president trump's first 100 days. now, i come from georgia. we've got a robust agricultural economy in georgia, and i tell my constituents day in and day out, if you're not going to raise your son or daughter to pick carrots in south georgia, if you don't aspire for your son or daughter to be the very best cabbage picker that we have in the state of georgia, if you are
not aspiring to be part of that agriculture economy and help us get crops out of the field, we need someone who is aspiring to do that hard work and it is hard work, mr. speaker. well, if we can agree these aren't jobs that american citizens are losing, these are jobs that are adding to the american economy, then we need a legal visa program to let folks come in, to let folks go out. i went in a bipartisan could he del, republicans, -- codel, republicans, democrats, traveling to el salvador, honduras, talking with families. you remember the women and children crisis there, unaccompanied minors coming across the border. i talked to family after family and they said, rob, listen. i don't want to be an american citizen. i don't want to go to america. i don't want to be in america. i'm happy here at home, but dad or my husband, he generally travels to america during the growing season, during the construction season and turns around and comes back home when that season is over.
well, you all are getting so tough on your border security. you're not handing out legal visas to do this work that now my husband or my dad can't come back home when the growing season is over so now we're all picking up and we're trying to get into america, too, so the family can stay together. well, that makes perfectly good sense to me if you were that family. it makes no sense if you're the american taxpayer. you recognize that you have jobs that need to be filled. you recognize you have skills that you are not training your children to fulfill and you don't want to change the visa program to make that happen. the president is committed to growing the economy. we know that's going to mean legal access in and out of the country. 61% drop in illegal border crossings in the first 100 days. i tell you what else that means, mr. speaker. that means instead of our border patrol, men and women, working that border under very difficult conditions, instead of our law enforcement, instead of all of the instruments of homeland
security that we have in this country being focused on families crossing the border with a 61% decline in this human trafficking across the border, law enforcement can now focus on the real security issues to this country, to the drugs crossing the border, to the weapons crossing the border, forbid the thought of weapons of mass destruction crossing the border. so much more that we'll be able to do together. mr. speaker, 25 iranian entities sanctioned by the trump administration the first 100 days. that's what we did together in this chamber. you'll remember, mr. speaker. we passed the iranian sanctions language in a bipartisan way to send the word to the leaders of iran that while we have great respect for your citizenry, we cannot tolerate a nuclear iran. we do not trust you to be a member of the league of nations with nuclear capabilities, and the answer is, no, as you pursue those very dangerous dreams.
well, you'll remember president obama negotiated a deal with the international community and with the iranians. i wish he hadn't but he did. we had those sanctions. those sanctions are now gone. iran is pursuing very much the same path that i would have expected them to pursue given the deal that was negotiated, and the world continues to be a dangerous place. well, we have rules on the books today, laws on the books today that allow the government, in consultation with the congress, in cooperation with the congress based on statutes passed by the congress to get involved unilaterally as the united states of america in trying to prevent a nuclear iran. 25 different entities identified by this administration as helping the iranian government to pursue those dangerous and illegal nuclear goals sanctioned and reined in. it's going to make a difference. it's going to make a difference to national security. it's going to make a difference to international security. 18 billion, mr. speaker. you can't see this slide, but already in four months on the
job, four months in cooperation with this congress we've seen $18 billion saved through the elimination of red tape. i don't mean $18 billion, that's a one-time deal, mr. speaker. i mean $18 billion annually in wasteful compliance costs erased by this administration. again, often in cooperation and consultation with congress. when i go back and tell you this president has signed more bills into law than any president since harry truman in cooperation with this congress, i'm talking about many of the bills that did exactly this -- cutting red tape, saving the american taxpayer money. those bills very often were brought through the congressional review act process. that's the process, as you know, mr. speaker, that allows the congress to take a look at the regulations that the administration promulgates. we passed the laws. the administration writes the regs. we get to go back to look at the
regs to make sure they represent the true intent of the legislation. well, in many instances so far this year, mr. speaker, in fact in more instances than any other time in american history, we've decided that those regulations do not reflect the intent of congress. in fact, often they are running directly contrary to the intent of congress. we've eliminated those $18 billion annually in savings to the american taxpayer. keystone pipeline, mr. speaker. approved. dakota access pipeline approved. think back, mr. speaker. we are going to disagree on things. i'm perfectly comfortable with the disagreements this body has, but when the application for the keystone pipeline was delivered to the administration, it took longer for the past two administrations to approve the keystone pipeline -- and by approve it i mean ultimately they rejected it. it took longer for them to
consider and reject the keystone pipeline than it took for americans to build the hoover dam from start to finish. i want you to think about that. when we're talking about jobs, when talking about the economy, when we're talking about america being that beacon of hope and freedom across, when we talk about the tremendous need of public works projects in this country and the amazing thing the american people can do when they put their shoulder into it, it took longer in the 21st century to get an answer to whether or not you're allowed to build a pipeline than it took to build the hoover dam from start to finish. that's bad for all of us. that's bad for every republican, every democrat, every independent, every single american citizen needs economic opportunity, every single american citizen needs a job, every single american citizen needs the certainty of knowing if the pipeline's bad, let's cancel it and let's move on, but let's not sit and wait and
delay. let's not debate and debate. let's get to an answer. first 100 days on the job, president trump got to an answer. president bush and president obama combined, again, over eight years of delay. president trump first 100 days approved this. what does this mean? well, it means that the oil coming out of canada is going to come to america to be refined. . remember, the keystone pipeline debate was never about the environment and whether or not the canadians were going to harvest this oil. it was never about that. the canadians were loud and clear, we are going to get this oil of the ground. we're either going to get it out of the ground and send it to america to be processed or we're going to get it out of the ground and send it to china to be processed. you pick. mr. speaker, that's an easy choice. if i get to be king of canada, i can make different decisions about their environment. but while canada has sovereignty and gets to make its own decisions about its natural
resources, we get to decide are american citizens going to profit from the processing of this oil, or is china going to profit from the processing of this oil? and, when this oil gets processed, who do you think's doing it the most environmentally sensitive manner? you tell me. if there's a single colleague in this body that believes the chinese are better stewards of the environment than the americans are, then you needed to vote no on the keystone pipeline. but if you believe that we care more about mother earth than the chinese do, if you believe that american rules and regulations protect the environment more than chinese rules and regulations do, then you needed to be a supporter of the keystone pipeline in his first 100 days. president trump took this source of indecision and confusion and provided certainty. that's not academic, mr. speaker. that's certainty -- that certainty is directly connected
to jobs. you can't see it from where you sit, mr. speaker, but i'm talking about over 500,000 new jobs. not connected to the pipeline individually. not this number. i'm talking about this approach to governing that says, people deserve a yes or a no answer. people deserve certainty. people deserve fast responses. people don't need to hang in the lurch. every single member of this body, mr. speaker, has seen it in their constituency back home. where a small business owner said, i wanted to hire a few more people, but i wasn't really sure what was about to happen and so i've been putting it off. i wanted to open a new franchise, but i wasn't entirely sure what the economic situation was going to be. so i've been putting it off. when we talk about the economic growth over the past 100 days, when we talk about the stock markets moving, when we talk about consumer confidence rising, when we talk about new jobs being created, we're talking about a change in attitude. and i've seen it on both sides of this body. it's a shame, mr. speaker.
there is that underlying current that maybe voters reward fightinging with each other more than they reward -- fighting with each other more than they reward fighting -- working with people -- reward working with people. i believe folks reward cooperation and getting things done. i think people pay us to make progress together. 500,000 new jobs, i'll read from the "wall street journal." it says the trump order is a promise in the bank for the voters who elected the president because he promised to focus on jobs and resking up the economy -- resking up the economy. i believe it's -- reving up the economy. i believe it's 12 congressional districts that have democrats representing them in congress. but those districts voted for president trump in the presidential election. these are not conservative men and women, ought oicross the district, purr -- out across the district. these are hardworking american families. who identify more with the democratic party and democratic
values, but who began to lose hope in what was going on with regulation across the country and job creation across the country. and they cast their vote for president trump. over 500,000 new jobs, mr. speaker. what are we talking about? we're talking about the keystone pipeline. we're talking about the clean power plan which alone threatened to put about 286,000 jobs out to pasture. we're talking about new investments in infrastructure. i'm not just talking about roads and bridges, mr. speaker. i'm talking about the f.a.a., the air transportation. i'm talking about ports like the port of savannah in georgia. the fastest growing container port in the nation. and sea transportation. i'm talking about railroads. i'm talking about water infrastructure, to make sure every family has access to clean and healthy drinking water. these are job creating proposals. and they're job creating proposals that have been kept off the books for so long because of regulatory uncertainty. today we have an opportunity to
do that for the very first time. mr. speaker, i'm going to take you back to where i began. and that's that we have a choice in this country. we can focus on the things that divide us all day, every day. we can do it. i still believe there's more that unites us as a nation than that divides us as a nation. but if you choose to spend your time talking about those things that divide us, you can fill up a day. if you choose to spend your time talking about those things that are broken, yet proffer nothing solutions to fix them, you can fill up a day. -- proffering no solutions to fix them, you can fill up your day. if you choose to spend your day talking about why everybody else is a lazy son of a gun and only you have access to the truth, you can fill up a day. then a week. then a month. then a year. and then a presidential cycle. and then a decade.
and then a generation. but, mr. speaker, if you'll ,ecognize that working together we've already passed more laws in 2017 than any other congress and president working together since harry truman, if you'll recognize that we've taken the uncertainty out of the supreme court, we fully staffed the supreme court so that uncertainty in the legal arena will exist no longer. if you recognize that a thorny issue like illegal immigration that has been made so difficult to solve because we haven't been able to figure out how to deal with the border security aspect, so we can go on and deal with the other thorny issues, those border crossings are down, which means our opportunity has increased for dealing with these problems that have plagued our nation for so long. i'll give you one example of that, mr. speaker. i'm going to digress. i have a family in my district trying to bring a relative into the country from haiti. they've been working on it for
11 years. 11 years. all the talk that goes on in this body about immigration, nobody's talking about helping my constituents from haiti. nobody's talking about passing a law to make it easier to get your family member in from haiti. nobody's talking about those families that have been separated while trying to follow the law of the land. nobody's talking about those families that have paid out of pocket to go through the legal process, all the time, all the money, all the delay, to do it the right way. nobody's talking about fixing it for those families. let's fix it for those families, because we all grea there's a better way. if you want to get -- agree there's a better way. if you want to get your adult child in from mexico, mr. speaker, you need to file your paperwork in 1993 -- needed to file your paperwork in 1939 for their number to be come company -- 1993 for their number to be coming up today. who believes a 25-year process to bring a family member into this country is the right answer? of course nokes are going to do it the -- folks are going to do
it the wrong way. if you want to bring your adult child, brother or sister from from the philippines, you had to file from 1994. who believes that's the right system? the system is broken. we don't have enough trust together to repair the system by eliminating the illegal border crossing, immediate challenge. the president's created the head room for us to work together on issues that we can absolutely solve. 728, mr. speaker. the number of millions of dollars saved in contract negotiations thus far. in fact, contract negotiations on one single pentagon project that the president has inserted himself in. for all the things you may think the president knows, doesn't know, you agree with, you disagree with, you have to know that he knows how to drive a hard bargain. you have to know that he knows how to negotiate big contracts. the american taxpayer is not
satisfied with the way we have been doing it, with the way former white houses have been doing it. we have an opportunity to come together and do it better and the president is leading us in that way. that all culminates, mr. speaker, in 16. and that's the number of years since consumer confidence in this country was at its current levels. you can do that math if you'd like, mr. speaker. it will take you back through an entire eight years of democratic control of the white house and it will take you back through an entire eight years of republican control of the white house. the american consumer does not care whether you're a republican or a democrat. the american consumer cares whether or not they think their job is secure. the american consumer does not care if you're a republican or a democrat. the american consumer cares whether prices are higher tomorrow or lower tomorrow. the american consumer does not care about our petty, silly,
inside the beltway washington arguments. they care about whether america is going to be stronger for their children and grandchildren a generation from now. and it's been 16 years since american consumers have the optimism that they have today. i'll say it again, mr. speaker. we can consume every second of every day in this body fussing, griping, complaining. there are lots of things that are wrong and lots of folks to blame for it. or we can recognize the big hopes and dreams that the american people have placed on this president and this congress and this time in our history. we can recognize that there's still more that unites us in this country than that divides us in this country. we can still recognize that folks care very little about us and our families and care so
very much about their community and their families. and with that as our touchstone, mr. speaker, callmy an irrational optimist, but i think irrationalcall me an optimist but i think there's absolutely nothing we can't do together. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentlewoman from washington, ms. jayapal, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. jay allen thank you -- ms. jayapal: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. speaker. this special order is for the congressional progressive
caucus. and i'm so proud to be a vice chair of that caucus and to lead the special order hour with my colleague, mr. raskin from maryland. we do this once a week and we try to take up topics that we think are of great interest across the country to our constituencies. so very proud to have the congressional progressive caucus leading the way on so many issues that are important, from education to transportation, infrastructure, to, of course, today's topic, which is the tax plan that was released yesterday by president trump. the tax plan that was released yesterday, and i have to start by saying, i'm not sure -- this is actually the plan. i'm not sure that a one-page document constitutes a plan. this is not even a two-sided document. it's a one-sided document. this is what we're reacting to. and it is similar to the tax plan that candidate trump spoke about during the campaign.
so we will do our best with what has been put forward as a plan. but this plan in our estimation, when you look at what it contains, amounts to nothing more than a one-page document full of handouts to the rich. the secretary of the treasury, steve mnuchin, yesterday said during a press conference that one thing that this president has done very well, this is a quote, one thing this president has done very well is listen. mr. speaker, i have to disagree with that. two weekends ago there were 190,000 americans in red state it's and blue states a-- states and blue states across the country who were on the streets asking for the president to release his tax returns in the same way that every other president of the united states has done in modern history. and unfortunately this president has not listened. as a canned dade daytona he said he would -- as a candidate he said he would release his tax returns.
he's refused to do. so he didn't less whn women and their allies took -- listen when women and their allies took to the streets to demand that he respect women, protect planned parenthood, and support equal rights for womenment and this president certainly didn't -- women. and this president certainly didn't listen to the women who were outspoken in their opposition to the republican health care plan that essentially took $1 trillion off of the backs of working people and folks who need health care across this country, and transferred it to the wealthiest in our country. the reality is this president unfortunately has not been listening to the american people. if you look at that health care plan, just as an example, only 17% of the american public actually supported trumpcare. this president has not been listening to now put forward another plan on health care that again suggests that we should actually take away essential health benefits from people,
take away the opportunity for people to have pre-existing conditions covered. and all once again leaving an additional 24 million americans tripped of their health care. so in this press tax conference yesterday, it appears the administration didn't have an idea exactly what the plan is going to look like except for the fact that it will be good for business. secretary muchein said, and this is a -- mnuchin said, and this is a quote, under the trump plan we will have a massive tax cut for businesses, end quote. and despite all of president trump's broken promises we have to believe this may actually be true. let's not forget that the secretary of the treasury was a c level executive at goldman sachs and his loyalties have been with big business. the tax plan, as we've been given it on this one-page document, is a gift wrapped tax
cut to the highest earners and corporations. the claim is that it was written to create jobs and spur economic growth and help low and middle-income families, but what it really does is drastically reduce tax rates for big business to just 15%. that tax break isn't just for corporations. it's also for pass-through firms, and let's be clear what pass-through firms are. pass-through firms are entities that wealthy people and companies use in order to funnel money and have lower tax rates. among these companies is the trump organization, and this is why in asking for the president's tax returns, this is not just an ask that doesn't have any meaning. it's not a partisan ask. we have 190,000 americans in the streets in red states and blue states because when we know what is in the president's tax returns, then we have the ability to make sure that we
understand as the american people whether any plan he proposals is in the interest of the american people or whether it's in his own financial interests. according to the center for american progress, 70% of partnership and s corporation income goes to the top 1% of u.s. households by income. so when you proposal a tax cut for these pass-through entities, we're talking about a tax cut for the people in the top 1% of this country. we are not talking about a tax cut that benefits middle-class working families. the center on budget and policy priorities provided a specific example where a lawyer making $1 million a year could funnel their income through that pass-through and could actually save $180,000 a year. and there's no doubt that this president would himself benefit
from this tax plan although we can't say exactly how much because we haven't seen the tax returns and we don't know exactly which financial interests he has and how much he would benefit. however, his own lawyers reported that nearly all of his 500 or so businesses are -- don't be surprised -- pass-throughs. if we accept this assertion from his lawyers that his assets are worth more than $10 billion, then this tax plan, or tax ploy, depending on how you want to see it, would actually save the president of the united states millions of dollars but would not benefit millions of working families across this country who actually need to see our tax system reformed so it is more fair. when asked how these tax cuts would pay for, secretary mnuchin said it would be so effective in
bolstering the economy it will pay for itself. we've seen trickled down economics before in this country and it's a nonsensical plan this plan would bolster the economy. we've seen the disastrous effect of trickled down economics, specifically on middle-income and low-income families, and the tax foundation estimates that reducing the business rate for companies and pass-throughs to 15% would actually reduce revenue in this country by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. and they also found that at the very best the plan would only spur enough growth to pay for less than half the cost of the tax cuts and low and middle-income americans would ultimately pay the price, not big business. now, this is similar to what we saw in the health care plan. in the health care plan, if you remember, what we saw was a proposal to cut $880 billion from medicaid expansion, from
medicaid and take that money and essentially give it $1 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest. so if you were in the top 4% of income earners in this country, you would have gotten a tax cut f about $200,000 a year. but if you were in that age that we like to call seniors between 50 and 64, you would have an age tax and would you have to pay up to $15,000 more on your premiums. so that's why some of my colleagues across the aisle actually call that health care plan a down payment on a tax plan. it was supposed to be the beginning of a tax reform plan that, again, moved more money to the wealthiest in our country. we are seeing a state level microcosm of this playing out right now in the state of kansas where the state passed massive tax cuts, including exempting pass-throughs from state taxes. 333,000 t, more than
residents changed their income to financial through pass-throughs in the first year alone. what happened in kansas when this was pushed through? state revenue went down by an additional almost 2%, costing $206 million in 2013, and $472 million the following year. today, the state faces a $1.1 billion shortfall, and residents are paying the price in lost programming and services, but the promise that was made at the time this plan was pushed through in kansas, the same plan, same kind of plan that's being proposed today at the federal level, the promise that was made is that it would kick-start the economy and unfortunately but not surprisingly that hasn't happened either. economic growth in kansas is happening at just half the national average. because here's the thing.
tax cuts don't just pay for themselves and there are plenty of experts on both sides of the aisle that will attest to that. a sheet of paper is not a plan, and everyone knows it. when reporters pressed secretary mnuchin and gary cohn for details, they failed to provide anything of scubs. a reporter asked cohn three times what the tax cut would look like for a family of four making $60,000 per year. i have a lot of those families, mr. speaker, in my district, and i believe we have those families in red states and blue states, working people across this country who believe that america should be, must be a land of opportunity for people who work hard and maybe they're not the richest people in the world. maybe they're not the richest top 1% in this country, but they work hard, they earn a good living and they deserve to have fairness in our tax plan. now, when he was asked three
times, mr. cohn was asked three times by this reporter what the tax cut would look like for a family of four making $60,000 a year he replied, it's going to mean a tax cut, three times in a row. instead of getting answers, though, and when he was pressed, reporters were told over and over again that they would get more information later and that the administration is in, quote, robust talks. well, i'm a member of the house and supposedly those robust talks are happening with the house and the senate, and we all represent the people of the united states. we want to all be a part of the conversation, and we demand to know, specifically as we look at this plan, how this president, his family and his cabinet will benefit from the tax plan. that is only fair, mr. speaker, that we understand exactly how this tax plan would benefit the person who is proposing the tax plan. is this tax plan for the
american people to see relief, or is it for the president and his best friends to see relief? the reality is that this is about an issue of trust. the american people deserve to know whether they can trust this president and this administration to act on their behalf. and so far unfortunately this administration has continued to throw the middle class under the bus, whether it's threatening to cut funding for meals or wheels, which is part of the budget proposal and cutting the cdbg block grant programs or whether it's proposing a health care plan that cuts vital health care for millions of americans. so we are intent to stay extremely vigilant, and i see that we have a couple of colleagues from the progressive caucus and so i'd like to yield some time to the distinguished gentlewoman from texas, a colleague on the judiciary committee, a strong champion for
working people in texas and across our country, representative sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady for her yielding and for her leadership on this special order, and i will take just a moment of your time because i think you have captured the essence of the frustration, not that members of congress have but that the american people have. and so i wanted to make sure that i shared some of the contrasts that we have between what has happened yesterday and the announcement of the administration, mr. trump's tax proposal, which in essence is really a bowl of horror. is a continuation of an ineffective 100 days, and the fear that i have is that it was rushed and put together to meet this really unnecessary standard, unnecessary test of 100 days. one that was so pronounced
during mr. trump's campaign in contrast to mr. clinton, mr. bush and mr. obama, the last three presidents that we had as an example. what's in the first 100 days? the first 100 days should be working. you should be working every day, and you should have to account or you should be able to account for the successes that you've done in the normal course of work and methodically you can check off the good you've done for the american people, that it comes naturally, that you have been methodical, that you worked with congress, that you worked with your executives, that you looked to see what can be improved. all that we can see is what has been destroyed or dismantled or attacked or i should say ridiculed. nothing that advantages the american people. certainly the health care bill was ridiculing the american people. it was ridiculous. $880 billion taken from
medicaid. $600 billion to be used for tax cuts of which they do not have at this point. but we fear they will be rushing through such a bill in the next couple of days. but more importantly, where was the commitment to all of the promises? so let me just speak to two particular points. the economic security of women, what has happened under this administration? blocking expanded overtime pay which disproportionately benefits women workers. failing to advance equal pay, paid family leave and affordable childcare legislation. talking about it but doing nothing. endangering retirement security by blocking a rule requiring retirement advisors to put clients first. can you imagine senior citizens who've helped build this country and you would deny them adequate counsel on their retirement? that's happened under this. all of these have happened under the trump administration.
proposing severe cuts to the department of labor, which would hinder enforcement of family and medical leave. of course, cutting meals on wheels, that has been indicated. cutting the national institutes of health. major lifesaving research down the drain. scientists looking for other countries to go to because they have no room at the end. and then making student debt harder to pay off by rescinding a rule that limits the fees that loan companies can charge its borrowers. remember, those borrowers are 18, 19, 20, 21 years old. they're the next generation or the current generation of the builders of this economy and this society. and then to add insult to injury, if i might say, yesterday a big pronouncement announced over the weekend, the biggest, fattest tax cut could you have or tax reform you'd ever have. and of course everyone knows in america this is not tax reform. this is a simple bunch of tax cuts that will have a
competition between debt and deficit. this will be a spiraling downward trend, digging america into the deepest hole of debt and deficit in the history of the united states. trillions of dollars spent on individuals and corporations that do not need it. how do i know? i've spoken to them, and there is a whole litany of corporate issues that are not being answered. for example, the idea of being able to deduct interest payments, nowhere to be found. that might middle-class working families as well as corporations and small businesses. but what you have is a trickled down economics. president trump's tax plan is built on the same trickled down economics that withered in equality and undermined working families. massive tax breaks for trump himself. in the course of his days that he may have paid taxes -- and let me be very clear, we don't know what impact this tax cut would have on him because we do
not have his tax returns. but we do know, and the last time we had records, he had to pay $39 million in taxes because of the alternative minimum tax put in place in 1986 by president reagan. can you imagine? if there was not the a.m.t., the alternative minimum tax, he would be paying $5 million. well, ladies and gentlemen, my dear colleagues, they've eliminated in this tax bill the a.m.t. that sounds suspicious and it shouldn't sound suspicious, it is suspicious and the reality of it is it's self-promoting and self-happening. and moving the corporate rate from 35% to 15%. let me make breaking news announcement. most corporations pay about 14%, but with the 35% moved to 15% maybe they'll pay 0%. who is going to be part of the overall supporting and investment in this nation to
build our infrastructure, to create jobs, to build the new level of energy, new technology, to ensure that health care is provided for those who need it, to make sure that the affordable care act continues to cover the millions of people that need it instead of cutting 24 million people? well, with the tax cuts in place, there is a rush to judgment. that judgment is a pronouncement of a complete deficit hole for the american people. . . there's no benefit for working class americans or middle class americans. there's no incentive to create jobs. in fact, i have no idea what the thinking or plan that went into the president's tax plan. all i know is that the american people get up every day and go to work. or those who go up every day and get three or four buses to go to work, and part of the time they're going to work they have to drop off their children at a school that may not be in their neighborhood, because there is need for more investment in education.
all i know is that those people of whom i'm so proud to be able to represent, as well as large businesses and small businesses, who i believe, as i've listened to corporate leaders just a few hours ago saying, we're with you all. we want what is best for america. this is not what we desire. not to give all to us or the top 1%. we want to help america grow. because as america grows, our companies thrive. our shareholders thrive. that is not the message of this administration. so i'm delighted to join the congressional progressive caucus to ask the question of the trump administration, are you so worried about the 100 days that you cannot worry about the american people? is 100 days more important than the mother who is traveling to work three and four hours? is 100 days more important than the traveling salesman who needs the kind of infrastructure and roads that works? or those in southern america that need the kind of rural electric system that helps them. or those that need clean energy.
or those that need research for the next cure for sickle cell anemia. is your 100 days so important that you cannot provide resources for law enforcement and firefighters and first responders? that you cannot provide help for the national parks, the national endowment for the arts, and you cannot provide direction to the department of justice, which has turned itself into the injustice, unjust department, exploring the ideas of taking away civil rights, denying individuals their rights as citizens in the united states, in terms of discrimination and equality, opportunity, or in actuality crealtcreathing the one thing that -- creating one thing that you can be proud of and at is the demonizing the deportation task force. that's demonizing hardworking individuals who simply want an opportunity for their families. so i would only say that i thank the gentlelady for yielding to
me and i thank the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin, as well, for his presence here, and others that will come and ask the question, are all these people that we've listed less important than your 100 days? i am saddened if the answer is yes. yield back. ms. jayapal: i thank the gentlelady from texas for eloquently articulating so many of the issues that are in front of us right now. including once again what exactly is this administration doing for people across this country, both those who voted for him and those who didn't. but middle class americans who are trying to make sure that this country stays the land of opportunity. now it's my great pleasure to yield time to my distinguished vice chair and co-chair of this special order hour, mr. raskin from maryland.
mr. raskin: thank you very much, mr. speaker, and thank you to congresswoman jayapal for leading us this special order to discuss -- us in this special order to discuss president trump's tax proposal which we received this morning, or last night. but the public discussion on taxes has been going on for several weeks now in anticipation of the release of the president's proposal. hundreds of thousands of americans took to the streets, from the east to the west, the north to the south, all over america. hundreds of thousands of people marched with a very simple demand to president trump. which is that he follow the precedent and the policy that was pursued by the last nine presidents, going back to richard nixon, for a half
century, of releasing his tax return. something that president trump promised to do as a president. saying he would do it after his audit was completed. then he got into office and then, just changed his mind and said this would be, i guess, another one of the broken promises that he would deliver to the american people. so why is this a big deal? why is it important that we get to see the president's taxes? ll, america was conceived in popular democratic revolution against royalty. against monarchy. against that. we as a people overthrew a king imposed tea taxes on small businesses, on the little people. but exempted his tycoon buddies in the east india corporation. a king who constantly sweated the commoners with high taxes to pay for his lack ofish expenses
- lavish expenses. a king who never paid any taxes and never disclosed his own entanglements with foreign governments. we rebelled against that kind of government. we demand accountability. demand transparency here. mr. president, please read the constitution. we have no kings here. we have no slaves here. we have no czars here. we have no serfs here. we have equal citizens, free citizens with equal rights. we allow no titles of nobility here. which is a point you might mention to your secretary of state who still carries that disgraceful title conferred upon him by vladimir pute an, the russian -- vladimir putin, the russian order of friendship. in america no one is above the law and all of us are subject to it. as tom pape put it, in the monarch -- payne put it in the
monarchies, king is law. but in the democracies, the law is king. the president of the united states owes an undivided loyalty to the people, the laws and the constitution of the united states. not the oligarchs of russia. not the businessmen of azerbaijan. not the hotel owners of the world. not the bank of china. not the dictators and tyrants of the earth. the president owes undivided loyalty to the people of the united states. and so we ask the question, where are your taxes? how can we determine whether the president has conflicts of interest or is collecting illegal emoluments from foreign governments, if he won't show us the names of the people and the corporations that he is an active -- is in active partnership with all over the world? we simply can't do it. how can we dream of under-- of
undertaking to completely reform and revise the tax policy of america unless we see the president's tax returns in order to determine whether or not he's going to benefit from the policies that he is now advancing? we can't do it. forgive me, but is there anyone left in america who thinks that this president would propose a tax reform that would hurt his own individual personal or business interests? if you believe that, you are too innocent to be let out of the house by yourself, at this point in the trump administration. so, then we arrive at work and we receive this. this is -- this single piece of paper is the donald trump tax plan. it's not a bill. it's not a study. it's not a plan. there are not even complete sentences in it. there are sentence fragments in it. it's not even a press release. but it's got a few key ideas,
apparently, that he's asking the republicans in congress to lead us to pass by tomorrow in order to make the 100-day deadline, which the president has disdained and castigated. but he wants to make the 100-day deadline because he understands now that there's some kind of, you know, milestone that he wants to suddenly be able to achieve on. ell, what's in here? first, the treasury secretary, mr. mnuchin, set out a test for tax reform in which he said, there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. well, this plan totally defies that promise. it betrays that promise. it provides a huge tax for -- tax cut for the wealthy, while middle class families receive very little benefit.
at the same time social programs are being sliced and diced all over the federal government. we also know that the tax plan will provide a huge benefit to donald trump himself. now, we know this only because one of his tax returns leaked out suspiciously, and some think from the white house. the 2005 plan, which appeared on tv. nothing before that. nothing after. but even taking this one year, which presumably is most in the president's favor, president trump would save over $28 million in taxes under the one-page plan that got passed around congress today. most of that money comes through the reduction of the pass-through business income tax rate, reducing it from the 30% range to 15%. but then it also proposes abolishing, and i know it
because it says right here, bullet number three, under bullet number five, repeal the alternative minimum tax. he wants to repeal the alternative minimum tax. now what is this a.m.t.? a.m.t. does not stand for all money to trump. a.m.t. stands for the alternative minimum tax. what it means is, if you're super wealthy and you got an army of lawyers on your side, and you can structure your corporate bankruptcies and your personal business losses, of which president trump has many, in such a way as to make it possible for you not to pay any taxes for a long time, the alternative minimum tax says, well, there's something that everybody's got to pay. there's an alternative minimum tax, we're not going to let anybody's clever lawyering bring them below a certain rate. and on that rule we know that
mr. trump, in that one year we know about, 2005, you probably saw it on tv, on that one year he paid millions of dollars, only because of the existence of the alternative minimum tax. in other words, all of his deductions and corporate bankruptcies and clever lawyers' tricks that got him down to zero presumably in all these other years that he won't show us, none of them could stop him from having to pay something. because the alternative minimum tax says, let's not press a good joke too far. we understand you're very wealthy. we understand that there are loopholes that have been injected into the law, but we're not going to let anybody fall below a certain minimum threshold. you can think of it kind of like the equivalent to the minimum wage for working people. the alternative minimum tax is kind of the minimum wage that the wealthiest people in the country pay us. as opposed to escaping all of their taxes. well, donald trump now wants to abolish the alternative minimum
tax. he just wants to get rid of it. that doesn't sound like a very good idea. it's going to dig a super big ole for us and dig the deficit much further. et's talk about the deficit. well, i thought -- look, i love the fact that we've got two parties. we should have more parties. it's great that we've got a left and a right. a bird can only fly if it's got a left wing and a right wing, all right? but i thought that the heart of republican party orthodoxy is ou don't blow up the deficit without tax proposals or spending proposals. right? they call us tax and spend liberals. they're cut the taxeses and spend conservatives -- taxes and spend conservatives. i don't even know what makes them conservative anymore. i call myself a liberal because the heart of the word liberal is
liberty. i call myself is progressive because the heart of the word progressive is progress. if we're not making progress, what are we doing in government? after seeing this plan i realize those of us on our side of the aisle can call ourselves conservatives too. because we want to conserve the land, the air, the water, the constitution, the bill of rightses, political democracy, our -- rights, political democracy, our alliances with foreign governments, foreign democracies, social security, health care for the people, and we want to appreciate appreciate -- and we want to preserve as much of a balanced budget as we can get to. on the other side of the aisle they are calling themselves conservatives and i don't know why. this plan is not remotely revenue neutral. the earliest estimates are that it will blow a $6 trillion or $7 trillion hole in the deficit.
and that, of course, is a way to put unsustainable pressure on the other commitments we've made as a congress, as a people. social security commitments to the people. medicare commitments to the people for health care. we cannot afford this irresponsible and reckless tax plan that has been sent to congress by the president. it is a return to discredited, failed supply-side economics. all they can say is they will blow a $7 trillion hole in the deficit but they will make so much money back through the economic activity that we'll be able to make money on that. and if you believe that, then you'll believe mr. trump's promise that he's going to release his tax returns next year or the year after that. look, we do need tax reform in
america because this system is regressive. this system is opaquely complex, and we need some real reform. but this is not remotely the answer. this one-page sheet of some really bad ideas. and let me just say one other thing that seems to have snuck in there. repeal the estate tax. they want to repeal the estate tax. this might be the greatest betrayal of all, not because president trump has ever supported it but because the founders of america were determined to have an estate tax. i'm talking about thomas jefferson and tom payne and ben franklin, the original americans wanted this to be a country of economic opportunity and freedom for people, but they thought the idea of inherited wealth passed down from generation to generation was a major threat to
the idea of political equality and democracy for all. they saw that it would be unsustainable if you had huge for turns -- nowhere huge as they are today -- but huge for turns from being pass down to generation to generation, that would lead us to a monarchy. that would lead us to presidents of the united states who would think they don't have to show you tony blair income taxes and presidents of the united states who think it's ok to spend public money on fancy vacations for their family and secret service all over the country and the world and having a winter -- a summer escape at mira lago, florida, and so on. go back, please. i beseech the citizens of america, read thomas jefferson about inherited wealth. now, our laws today don't even have the estate tax or the
inheritance tax starting until millions of dollars. the vast majority of americans are not even affected by it. it applies right now only to the smallest sliver of the wealthiest americans. i think -- and forgive me for not having the facts in front of me. again, we're just getting all of this right now. but i think we're now somewhere around $4.5 million. so if you die with $4.5 million, your estate is not going to be taxed. that's enough to send the kids and the grandkids to college. it's enough for people to inherit a house or two houses. that's not bad, ok. but the fact that we would tax beyond that means that we're not going to get a society that's based on inherited wealth and deep, profound political and economic inequalities which were totally inth ma to the founders of the country and total anti-theycal to the vision of
adam smith who is the big hero to my conservative friends on the other side of the aisle. adam smith was someone who said, you don't want to have inherited wealth in a society like that. that's dangerous. it will promote idleness and irresponsibility among the people who inherit hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. it will increase political inequalities and class tension in society. and it will lead to irresponsible behavior by the people who have that kind of wealth and people who get the idea that they can buy a public office. in america, public office is something that you earn. it's not something that you buy, but right now there's a model for elective politics around the country which is you don't have to be involved in politics, you don't have to be involved in social movements, you don't have to be involved in public service, you don't have to do anything for anybody. as long as you got enough money, you can go in and you can buy the consultants and pollssters
and go right to the head of the -- polls ters and go right to the head of the class. what's wrong with that? look around the world. there is a whole new model of government that's popping up dwareta's's russia to hilippines to hungary and la pens. it is that government becomes a money machine-making operation for them and their friends, for the totally elite. that totally contradicts to the founders of america. they wanted to make sure there would be public virtue, we would put people in office who were committed to the common good, to the public interest of everybody, not to the goal of enriching themselves or their hotel partners or people they're in business with in russia or in saudi arabia or all over the world. that's not the model. in america the government's got to be devoted to the people. fine print read the
here. this tax plan contradicts everything that we were founded on as a country. it upsets the very idea of democracy, abolishing the estate tax, abolishing the alternative minimum tax, driving all the wealth up the income and wealth ladder. that's not america. we got to stand up for what american values really are. we are not russia. we are not aser buy january. -- azerbiajian. we are not saudi arabia. we need to be committed to the economic success of every family, of every person. so i'm urging the public to do exactly what you did with that terrible health proposal they came forward with that would have thrown 24 million americans off health insurance in order to create hundreds of billions of dollars of tax breaks for the
wealthiest americans. reject it. don't accept it. and america needs to know that all of the protests and the popular participation is working . the women's march set the whole context for discussion about what's going to happen here because we know that president trump campaigned like william jennings bryant, like he was a big populist. he was going to be the side of the working people but he got in and the very people he denounced like goldman sachs has come to run his cabinet. it's a wall street cabinet. that's who this government represents today. that's what this tax plan represents today. so they're going to try to jam it down congress over the next 24 hours. we're going to do everything to stop it. we need the help of the american people to stand up and say, no. what's the rush? let's take time and let's analyze what's in there. let's see if it's consistent with our values. let's see if it will blow a multitrillion dollar hole in the u.s. deficit. let's see if it's sustainable
and let's see if this is the best way to do this. this is not a way to run the congress of the greatest democracy on earth. springing things at us in the last minute, just like they did with the health care plan. you know, the affordable care act that they're so eager to slice and dice at this point ame about after 70 hearings in this body, after a year and a half of debate, after town meetings all over america. and their plan to destroy it, they brought in on monday night and they voted it in on wednesday with no hearings, with no witnesses, with no deliberation and discussion. and now they want to try the same magic trick with their tax plan. and they got a royal straight flush, let's be clear. they control the house, the senate, the white house, and now with the confirmation of mr. gorsuch, the supreme court, all that we got on our side are those three beautiful words that kick off our constitution -- we the people. we the people.
we the people have stand on up and say this is not what anybody voted for. it clearly was not what the majority of the country voted for. the majority of the people did not vote for donald trump but states even what the and the electoral coverage wanted. nobody was talking about a tax plan that would bring havoc and ruin to our economy and drive working class and middle-class people even further into a position of submission to the wealthiest people who now appear to want to govern us in all things. we don't begrudge anybody their wealth. this is great in is a country where people can get rich. that's great. but your wealth does not give you the right to control everybody else. your wealth does not give you the right to govern the rest of america. that's the principle at stake here and with that i will yield back to the distinguished gentlewoman from washington or i ill yield back to the chair.
the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. it's been interesting hearing about the situation in the country, and it is amazing how some of us can look at the same thing and see very different situations. i know there are some that think we should stay in session all
the time but as is normally said back in texas about the texas legislature, it applies even more so to the u.s. congress and that is when legislature is in session, neither man nor property is safe. and you know, we're voting on bills every day we're in session. as i understand it, there was a time when congress could be in session, have hearings during the day, maybe vote in committee but not actually have votes on the floor during the day, but i think over the years the concern has been, if we're not voting on the floor where it's recorded, then people might not show up. and there is certainly a body of evidence to support the country being better off when congress doesn't come into session. i had read that one of our
founders, thomas jefferson, for all his wisdom and his incredible draft -- it was the first draft of the declaration of independence, jefferson was not actually there in philadelphia to help draft the constitution in 1787. but i had read that he sent a letter and remarked, if he had one thing he could get into the constitution -- realizing, of course, it was too late at that point -- but it would be a requirement that no bill could be worked on -- voted on in congress until it had been on file for a year. and some might immediately respond. well, gee, there are so many bills that we pass as emergency bills -- and i would respond that, yes, and usually those
things that are drafted so quickly are more problematic than other legislation that goes through a lengthy, more diligent look at what's in the bill before it is passed. and in fact, if we had such -- and i'm not advocating that we have this constitutional amendment, but i am noting, mr. peaker, the merits of having bills on file for a lengthy period of time so people have a chance to think about it and talk about it and weigh the merits and go back to our districts and talk about the merits there. of course, i'm not talking about going back and having these fake news town halls where people
that supporting opponents demand town halls and they have their playbook for how you go about trying to intimidate your member of congress and keep intimidating until your member of congress becomes a coward and he's afraid not to have or she's afraid not to have a town hall and then once you've cowarded them into having a town hall, then they got the playbook for how you totally disrupt the town hall. that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about going all over your district, talking to people just eye to eye, heart to heart and finding out where people are. . and it is incredible how people have come to be hurting over the last eight years. now, for all the talk that
president obama had about fat cats on wall street, it was as if there was a wink and a nod, ok, i'm going to refer to you guys on wall street as fat cats but i'm going to make you richer than you've ever been. i am going to stack the deck in your favor. all you have to do is endure me calling you fat cats, making references to you being so greedy, and i may even refer to you being republican even though probably more of you donate to me than did to my opponents, but that will be our little game and then of course when i'm out of $400,000 u can pay me for giving you an hour of my time, and that's another wink and nod. it's a friendly reward for how good i did you while i was president because let's face it, you know, the democrats got through the dodd-frank bill that
was supposed to punish the banks that brought us to the brink of ruin, but instead of punishing or reining in the investment banks on wall street that brought us to the brink of ruin, instead dodd-frank has overseen he demise of hundreds, hundreds, even thousands, of community banks. that did not bring us anywhere close to the brink of economic disaster. and in fact, they were the back bone. ut as president george w. bush was going out of office and he got $700 billion handed over to the treasury department so they could reward people like at goldman sachs who had brought
us, helped bring us to the brink if speration, and in fact you -- i only saw one of the were drafted by the treasury department some years back and lo and behold, it was one of the firms that was listed as being appropriate for the treasury to contract with for all these different -- yeah, goldman sachs was right in there. d of course with the disdain that secretary paulsen had for goldman sachs he wasn't about to let their competitor lehman brothers survive, so he was able to keep them from surviving, not helping them. god bless ford motor company,
they were able to turn down any government assistance that g.m. and chrysler took. but there was a remedy -- remedy if we hadn't panicked and had followed the advice of former fdic chairman isaacs that i found out from my democratic friend brad verman that actually he's the one that first brought former chairman isaacs to the hill. but he had a good solution that would not have caused taos take what was referred to by socialists the day after it passed as the biggest step toward socialism in the last 50 years, and that was washington government, federal government, crawling in bed and calling the shots with the investment banks on wall street much to the ruin of so many community banks. we gave advantages to the big
banks. we hurt the community banks who were not able to compete as well. god bless all of those that have hung in there. i hope that we can rectify things better than that. ut the bottom line, i think, testifying about what the obama years was about, was even acknowledged by president obama a few years ago. e actually acknowledged that a record ency oversaw that had never happened before .n u.s. history 95% of the income in the united ates, it was under obama's
policies, 95% of all american income went to the top 1% in america. if you were looking for one fact to really characterize the abuses of the preceding eight years, i think that would be in of the on because 95% not went to the top 1%, under george w. bush, not under george h.w. bush. not under ronald reagan. not under richard nixon. not under dwight eisenhower. not even under truman. but under barack hussein obama's policies during his presidency
he way the deck was tilted against the middle class that shrunk as the poor in america and under obama's policies, we actually hit a milestone in american history, 95% of the income went to the top 1% income earners. that's pretty amazing. so i do personally, mr. speaker, think that has something to do gaining theublicans majority in the house, in the enate, getting the presidency. americans by huge margin of electoral votes, and if you look at the map, who voted for donald
trump and who voted for hillary clinton, pretty well establishes the democratic party as the fringe party of america. they won the fringes other than some major cities here and there. but they're the fringe party. and all across america, the bulk of america, when you look at the map, voted to change course. let's try something different so that 95% of america's income doesn't end up in the pockets of the top 1%. those same 1% that will be paying president -- former president obama $400,000 for one hour of his time. where have we heard that recently? well, i don't believe that was george w. bush speaking to the disabled veterans getting that
kind of money. oh, yes, i recall now. it was hillary clinton. it was bill clinton. bill clinton earning massive amounts for speeches while his wife was the secretary of treasury. h, yes, and wow. all of those tens, hundreds, millions of dollars coming to the clinton foundation, all just amazingly at the time that this company that ends up being controlled by the russians are allowed by hillary clinton to uy like 25% or so of our uranium production. so let's recap briefly what the clinton family has done for us.
well, we know that in the 1990's, when it comes to foreign affairs, we know that north korea was a threat. to the world. to freedom. ,ecause they had a crazy leader m jong il, and the world was concerned that north korea might get nuclear weapons. so what happened during the clinton administration? well they -- wendy sherman and some other folks they negotiated with the north korean they said you know what if you'll just sign and say you're agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons, we'll make sure you have everything you need to make nuclear weapons. but you will have to sign saying
that when we give you everything, make sure you have everything to make nuclear weapon, you just won't make them into nuclear weapons. and i mentioned before but it -- routine s me of that jeff foxworthy talks about, about when he was not doing very well, financially, and a guy comes to take his car because he hadn't been able to make his payments, and he said, look, man, please don't take my car. if you take my car, i can't do any more gigs and i can be the make any money and then i have no chance of paying you. and the guy said, buddy, i'm sorry. but my instructions were to either take the car or cash or a check. check? you mean, i can just sign something and you will take that and leave my -- oh, well, i can
give you a check. i didn't know that was going to be good enough. i thought about kim jong il thinking, you mean, you'll give me everything i need to create a nuclear weapon and a bunch of nuclear weapons and you'll accept my signature and that's good enough for wendy sherman nd all these other people, our secretary of state under bill clinton? amazing that she's had the nerve to come out critical of any other secretary of state after the disaster she presided over. but ok. yeah. he's glad to sign whatever the clintons wanted him to sign. sure. ms. sherman wants me to sign something, i'll sign whatever you want. and in no time what does he have? nuclear weapons. so president obama comes into office. the whole world is concerned about iran getting nuclear
weapons. so what do they do? they say, let's send wendy sherman and some of these smart people like john kerry that doesn't know how to pronounce genghis kahn, let's send them over there to negotiate with iran so maybe we can keep iran from developing nuclear weapons the same way some of these same people kept north korea from developing nuclear weapons. so what happens? they go over, they give the largest supporter of terrorism in the world massive amounts of cash and by mass i i mean palates of cash. -- pa lets of cash. -- palettes of cash. and checks, however you may want it. they may have had some gold, platinum, who knows, plutonium. it will be interesting in years ahead to just see how terrible the agreement was and now we're
finding out, seems like most every night in the news we find out some other disaster that the obama administration provided the crazy supporters of terrorism in iran, and i don't mean the rank and file people, we get the impression possibly a majority of iranians like americans. they wish they did not have radical islamists in control. but they are. and the obama administration provided them murdering thugs who have killed, been responsible for the death of so many in the past and no doubt will be again in the future and they are on their way to having nuclear weapons just like the
clinton administration oversaw with north korea. and in the meantime, though at the end of the bush administration, president bush's administration actually were making progress, making our borders more secure, never came out during those days, but the republicans and the texas delegation in congress were having meetings once every uple of weeks with people in the bush administration, karl rove, chertoff -- chertoff a lot of good that did. but we were get regular ports every couple of weeks, we wanted to know what advancements, what progress had been made in the preceding two weeks in securing our border. and they were taking steps to do that. president obama takes over and
what happens? like the flood gates were opened. and as the border patrolmen have said, to the drug cartels who were responsible from the mexico side for every inch of the border, you cross over in one drug cartel's sectoring you must make sure you have their permission. normally that means you must pay or agree to work for them when you get to the u.s. city where you're going and that's why they call the department of homeland security their logistics. that all the drug cartels had to do is get these people across the border, they paid thousands to the drug cartels to get them across, they were used as a distraction, they send them across, the border patrol would have to in-process them in accordance with obama mollcies and while they were doing that, they would tell you privately
yes, we know there are drugs coming across other points in the river, down there south of mcallen and southwest of mcallen but they knew. we're doing our job, we know they are bound to be bringing drugs over while they keep us tied up. . then, the department of homeland security would ship many of those people to the places that they'd have addresses for and i witnessed myself there were times when our border patrolmen, well, you surely didn't come up with all the thousands and ultimately they finally admit, no, they are going to let me work some of that off when i get to the city where i'm going. in other words, they'd be their drug mules, they would be their drug sales people. some, god forgive us, would get into sex trafficking.
and the obama administration allowed this massive network to take off. at the same time we heard from f.b.i. director comey, we ended up with isis cells in every state. so we had the drug cells locating all over the country in the last eight years. we had isis creating cells that would be activated at some point and begin to kill americans. and so it shouldn't have been that big of a surprise to those who were really paying attention that americans were ready for a change. not on the fringes, but americans across the heartland were ready for a change and they voted for donald trump. and this week, i don't know if we're going to vote tomorrow on
.he american health care bill i've indicated now with the changes that have been made, i think probably 90% or so of the freedom caucus has now agreed. we have gotten the best we can get, and if we don't do something, people in my district who just are overwhelmed with the prices of their health insurance premiums, the cost of health care, the high deductibles, meaning they're paying for insurance that they'll probably never get anything out of, they need help. that's one of the reasons i was a holdout because even though i think c.b.o. is talking about premiums continuing to increase up to 2026 and then 10 years from now start down a little bit, people in east texas could
not afford for premiums continue to go up for 10 years. i think it's probably more accurate they would be going up for three years, but what we've done and the agreement we got and i'm telling you, president trump is a great man to negotiate with. he does want to get a deal done. and was extremely cooperative and he actually can be quite enjoyable to negotiate with. he's an amazing man. we were having trouble with the leaders in the house and the senate. president trump would agree to things and we'd have trouble getting it passed our own leadership. some of us felt all along, if you let the conservative group sit down with the tuesday group, we could probably get things worked out and really bottom line is that's basically what
has happened. tom macarthur is a very dear friend and i know he wants what's best for the people in his district. he's doing all he can to serve them and i know that's what the tuesday group wants to do. they want to serve their constituents. we all do. so now where we are and hopefully we'll have votes so we can get this done, but we've gone from a bill that had 17% pport of the american people and now we have gotten an agreement to include provisions that eliminate the taxes immediately that would have been pt in place for the future under our agreement. the language is there. those taxes are out immediately. there's also been added a work
requirement for people on -- that are medicaid recipients if they're able to work, then they should work. if they can't -- if they don't have a job, they still will need to do some work under the work requirements much like the welfare requirements that were passed in the 1990's by the republican house and senate and , r the first time in 30 years single mom income when adjusted for inflation started going up after the work requirement was added. we've also agreed to language that will make sure that people that have pre-existing conditions can't be shunned by the insurance companies. if you're 26 and you're living with your parent, you can still be on their insurance. i don't know why we have an age limit at all. those things will still be there
despite all the fear mongering that some on the other side of the aisle have done back in texas that i know of. but let's make no mistake. this is not a full repeal. there's still a lot of work to be done. but the macarthur amendment will allow the repeal of some of the mandates -- not the pre-existing condition or 26 being on parents' insurance, but some of the other mandates that have spiked the insurance costs so while this revised version doesn't fully repeal obamacare, it does bring -- it will bring down the costs of health insurance and the people i represent just had to have help. at least 75% were saying we got to have help. so we look forward to working with the senate and trying to as it goes better
to the senate. i think i have just a minute. i just want to note that the observance anniversary of the holocaust this past tuesday, april 25, very somber occasion held in the rotunda. i know the minority leader, senator schumer wanted it there, and i just continue to hope and pray as i hope most americans do that we will never, ever, ever have another holocaust. and i think one of the things that can help prevent that is if we have effective national days of prayer as it's been going on for so many decades, going back to washington proclaiming days of thanksgiving and prayer and fasting. i deeply regret, though, that we thought we were going to be able to fulfill the vision of ann
graham lotts, the new chairman of the national day of prayer. she took over for shirley dobson who did a magnificent job. she had a vision of doing it in the rotunda. and all that would require, like for the holocaust observance, unanimous consent in the house and senate and it would have been after 5:00 even though the holocaust occurred during the day. it was clear and she had agreed, the national day of prayer folks had agreed, but any senator can put a hold on such a thing and one senator did. senator schumer put a hold on the national day of prayer being able to use the rotunda. and i hope and pray someday senator schumer will realize that the best way to avoid a holocaust in the future is to have effective national days of
prayer from the rotunda and everywhere else that we possibly can. as the church services have been held in the capitol, participated by thomas jefferson and james madison and so many others, they were nondenominational so they thought they didn't violate their constitution. but it looks like this will be in the area that senator schumer cannot stop from being used. it's totally under the control of the house, and i want to thank speaker ryan for allowing the use. it will be in statuary hall where church, nondenominational christian churches were held on sunday, largest church in washington, for much of the 1800's. so that's where it will be this year and hopefully we won't have a senator that will put a hold anne graham ar and -- billy graham's daughter will