tv U.S. House Reauthorizes Homeland Security Funding CSPAN July 20, 2017 8:59am-1:49pm EDT
independence. i hope he gets well soon from his surgery. i guess doctors are lucky to find out he had those problems. i'll be gets better. that is all i have got to say. host: did you vote for him when he ran for president? caller: i did not vote this time -- [indiscernible] when he ran. -- host: when he ran. caller: i always admired him as a patriot. is a wonder he survived. but i do hope he gets well from the surgery and i hope you have a long life ahead of him. we will leave it there.
lawmakers walk through their starting legislative session. we will bring you live coverage here on c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. you have blessed us with all good gifts and with thankful
hearts we express our gratitude. you have created us with opportunities to serve other people in their need, to share together in respect and affection and to be faithful in the responsibilities we have been given. in this moment of prayer, please grant to the members of this people's house as they return home to meet with their respective constituents the gifts of wisdom and discernment that in their words and actions they will do justice, love with mercy and walk humbly with you. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and demrory. amen. -- honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from michigan, mr. mitchell. mr. mitchell: i pledge
allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests r one-minute speechs on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, it's been a difficult week in northern illinois. a little over a week ago torrential rains entered into wisconsin -- fell on wisconsin and northern illinois and now four illinois counties have been named disaster areas. lake county, mchenry county, kaine county and cook county. as difficult as it is it's an incredibly impressive thing to visit these communities, all in the sixth congressional district and what you'll
witness are literally hundreds of volunteers following through and filling thousands of bags of sand to help their neighbors. mr. roskam: municipal employees, first responders, local leaders, the governor of illinois and members of the illinois delegation have all come together in order to meet our neighbors' needs at this time. for those would are people of faith, i ask you pray for these families as they are going through this difficult time and those at home, i commend those who have lended a hand. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. butterfield: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i rise this morning to honor the reverend parker jr. who served as pastor as historic sycamore church located in greenville, north carolina, for more than 35 years. the son of howard parker, he attended shore university, went
to salem state university, wake forest university and united christian college, ultimately receiving a master of divinity degree and an honorary doctorate of divinity degree. under his leadership, mr. speaker, sycamore has grown in membership and has become a giant in the greenville community in addition to leading his congregation, he served as president of the general baptist state convention which represents more than half a million 17 north carolina congregations. he was twice elected to the board of education and has served as the board's chair. he served as associate chaplain of the greenville police department and as a member of the greenville initiative on gang violence. e's married to the former ruby grantham. they have two adult children. kelly and andrea. his unselfish service to mankind has positively impacted the lives of so many. his contributions to the
community are far and wide and too numerous to mention. i ask my colleagues this morning to join me in honoring reverend dr. howard w. parker jr., thank him for his important service to god and humanity. we wish him well in the years to come. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to announce the foration of the congressional pay your state caucus. i join my colleague, congressman bill foster of illinois, in leading this bipartisan caucus that will examine the disparities states like new jersey and illinois experience by paying more in federal taxes than we receive in federal spending. in fact, new jersey is dead last with the rate of return of just 77 cents for every tax
dollar sent to washington. this caucus seeks to recommend legislation to ensure that donor states keep more of their hard-earned funds. for example, working to maintain the state and local tax deduction when this body considers an overhaul of our nation's tax code. eliminating that deduction would further increase the disparity that already exists. alexander hamilton wrote in the federalist papers about his fear that the federal government might monopolize taxation to the entire exclusion and destruction of state governments. the caucus will work to address this problem and for a greater return on the tremendous federal revenue stream from economic opportunity and innovation in new jersey and other states. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada seek recognition? the gentlelady from nevada is ecognized.
ms. rosen: in nevada and across the country we are seeing a huge demand for workers in the tech industry, including software developers, engineers and computer programmers like myself. despite the progress we've made, fewer than one in five computer graduates are women so i'm proud to introduce my bill, h.r. 3316, the code like a girl act, because i believe in breaking down barriers and closing the gender gap once and for all. this bipartisan legislation invests in computer science education, opening doors for women to become part of a highly skilled work force. funding programs that encourage girls to take up computer science is one of the most important steps we can take to break down barriers and level the playing field for women everywhere. a code like a girl act will go one step further, by teaching our girls that zero is false, one is true and that we matter too. i encourage my colleagues to invest in our girls by supporting my bill.
thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in the spirit of made in america week. since taking office in january, i've had the privilege and honoring with meeting with american workers and small businesses in my district, from manufacturers to the farmers who feed our community and our world. unfortunately, we've seen far too many of our jobs leave this country. i am focused on adjusting the problems in our economy that are destroying jobs and stalling growth. we've already made significant progress in reducing the regulatory burdens that make it hard for businesses, large and small, to survive. congress has passed and the president has signed overturning ridiculous regulations. mr. mitchell: i look forward to doing comprehensive tax reform so americans can keep more in
their paycheck. i will continue to advance solutions to compete in our changing work force. mr. speaker, let's remain focused, keeping jobs in america, products made in america. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. perlmutter: july 20, five years ago we had a terrible tragedy in colorado. 12 young people were killed. 70 were injured and countless suffered emotional trauma. and today i just want to recognize these 12.
despite the tragedy we suffered and the impact on our community, there were at least two bright spots. the response of law enforcement, the firefighters, the ambulance drires, the medical personnel in dealing what was a war zone. and over the five years, the families have come together and become great friends, recognizing and celebrating the lives of the people who were aken by that crazed shooter. i just want to recognize them and those that assisted them and let everybody know we won't forget, time goes on and the memories dim a little bit but these were great young people, our first responders were wonderful and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back his time.
for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize a truly outstanding constituent in the field of health care, greg elliott of charleston, west virginia. he's been selected this year as one of the recipients of the prestigious joe warner patient advocacy award. the national center for assisted living, the nation's largest association of professional long-term health care providers, bestow this annual award on association members who have worked diligently to educate members of congress about the needs of long-term care patients and to advance the quality and long-term and postacute care community. mr. mooney: mr. elliott is a second generation owner of am-fm long-term facility which has long-term, skilled and nursing home facilities throughout west virginia. greg is frequently visiting in
washington, my congressional office, advocating on behalf of west virginia seniors. the third party research institute, my interview, has ranked the facility in the top 10% in the nation 46 times for customer or employee satisfaction. greg elliott resides in charleston, west virginia, with his wife of 16 years, jennifer, and 10-year-old daughter elizabeth and their two dogs. mr. speaker, please join me in thanking greg elliott for his dedication and care for our nation's frail, elderly and disabled. his career and accomplishments truly ideals the award in the joe warner award. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, many health insurers executives say they are raising premiums and leaving exchanges because of
uncertainty and the threat of not paying the cost sharing reductions and not funding them. brad wilson, c.e.o. of blue cross blue shield of north carolina told "the washington post" in may, quote, the failure of the administration in the house to bring certainty and clarity by funding c.s.r.'s has caused our company to file a 22.9% premium increase rather than one that's materially lower, unquote. mr. ruiz: we need a bipartisan solution to stabilize exchanges. we need to stop threatening not to pay the c.s.r.'s. i introduced the marketplace certainty act which provides stability by permanently funding and expanding eligibility for these subsidies. this is pragmatic, commonsense legislation to stop premiums from skyrocketing, keep insurers in exchanges and help people struggling to afford health care. i urge republicans and democrats to put people over
partisanship, solutions above ideology, work together, sponsor by bill and help american families afford health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, since last year when our intelligence community concluded that russia sought to influence our elections, we have seen a series of terrifying headlines. this has not stopped. last week we found out the president's son took a meeting in which he anticipated receiving from the russian government damaging information on the democratic nominee. in was after it was spelled out in black and white in an email that the information came from the kremlin and donald jr.'s
response, i love it. but now we must go further. we need an independent commission which congress can authorize. speaker ryan, these issues goes beyond party. they go to the heart of our democracy. the american people deserve the truth. allow a vote on an independent commission before the august recess. i yield back. . . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule 20. the house will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to
house resolution 454, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2825 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2825, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to make certain improvements in the laws administered by the secretary of homeland security and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, and the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. mccall. mr. mccaul: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five ledge sleative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccaul: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he wishes to use. mr. mccaul: i rise in strong support of the department of
homeland security authorization act of 2017. mr. speaker, the american people are reminded about the threats facing our country on a daily basis. when they turn on the tv or pick up the newspaper, they learn about the latest terror attack or plot, foreign governments engaged in cyberwarfare and drug smugglers and human traffickers relentlessly trying to creep across our border and infect our neighborhoods. our adversaries are determined and agile, they wish to strike our homeland and disrupt our way of life. they are constantly calling for new attacks to be carried out against americans with any weapons they have available. to stay ahead of our enemy well, need a national security apparatus that is best set out for success and can adapt to new challenges as they arise. after the 9/11 attack the creation of the department of homeland security was necessary to help confront the threats at that time.
unfortunately, congress has not re-authorized, never re-authorized, d.h.s. since it was created. this is just simply unacceptable. and that is why eight committee chairmen signed a memorandum of understanding at the beginning of the year stating that, quote, the department of homeland security and its components should be authorized on a regular basis to ensure robust oversight and improve its operations, end of quote. if we're going to keep america safe, we must reform and improve d.h.s. through a first ever comp rehence i re-authorization. the legislation before us today accomplishes several goals. first, it reasserts congress' article 1 authority. creebate the constitution. to write laws and give discretion to the department. congress has abdicated its role and responsibility in providing
comprehensive legislation direction since 2002. and has ceded power to the executive branch. this legislation will fix that. second, it creates efficiencies by eliminate, consolidating and streamlining programs and offices. with dangerous gathering -- with dangers gathering and terrorist threats evolve, we need the most nimble d.h.s. possible for the secretary to lead and carry out the department's vital mission. third this bill protects american taxpayers by making d.h.s. more accountable through new cost efficiency efforts -- more accountable. through new cost efficiency efforts we will be able to provide the funds necessary to keep our country safe while identifying an removing government waste. fourth, our legislation will support our frontline defenders and first responders. this bill will provide the tools and training needed to defeat emerging threats through important grant programs while
also allowing d.h.s. to better focus on recruiting and training a qualified work force. finally, it improves america's security. specifically, this re-authorization will strengthen the department's ability to deny terrorist entry into the united states. ensure that federal agencies meet readiness standards to respond to terror attacks and natural disasters. expand t.s.a.'s use of explosive detection technology and bolster security at last points of departure. you'll also -- it will also modernize and replace outdated coast guard vessels. it will investigate cross-border crimes, including human trafficking, cyber crimes an drug smalling -- drug smuggling. these are necessary measures we as congress must take to fight back against the array of ever-changing threats. this legislation is a
commonsense and bipartisan bill that is long overdue. it also enjoys strong backing from the administration. in testimony given to my committee, secretary kelly stated that, quote, this is an important endeavor which will provide the department with the authorities it needs to carry out its mission. end of quote. and just recently today in an op-ed that ran this morning, in support of this bill, secretary kelly wrote, quote, there is no more important mission no, duty more sacred, than protecting the people of the united states of america, and i strongly encourage members in both parties to support this legislation. protecting our homeland and keeping american families safer -- safe are shared goals that should bring both parties together, not push us apart. and a comprehensive
re-authorization of the department of homeland security will be a major, major bipartisan accomplishment and an example of what we can achieve when we put the safety and security of our country ahead of partisan politics. i would like to thank the speaker and the majority leader for all their efforts to help bring this to the floor. i'd also like to thank each of the chairmen of jurisdiction for signing the m.o.u. as well as members of the committee on homeland security. from both sides of the aisle and the staff members who made this possible. let's show our enemies that we stand united in protecting our country, our values, and our people so i urge my colleagues to support this bill, thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker.
i rise in support of h.r. 2825, the department of homeland security authorization act of 2017. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. most americans give little thought to the range of activities that the department of homeland security undertakes every day to safeguard our nation. consideration of this legislation today provides us with an opportunity to take a moment to not only acknowledge the contributions of the 240,000 men and women who serve at the department, but to consider what d.h.s. does on a daily basis. on any given day, the transportation security administration screens two million air passengers and one million bags. the federal protective service protects 1.4 million people who
visit and work in federal buildings. the u.s. customs and border protection screens 282,000 vehicles, 72,000 truck, rail, and maritime containers. the u.s. coast forward seizes and removes over 1,000 pounds of drugs and saves more than 10 lives in search and rescue operations daily. the secret service provides physical protection to the nation's highest elected leaders, visiting foreign dignitaries, facilities and major events and a national cybersecurity and communications integration center issues 50 psycher warnings and blocks nearly ,000 intrusions. this list of activities is not by any means exhaustive. but i think it's important for members to keep in mind that d.h.s. -- what d.h.s. does every day as we consider h.r. 2825.
a central focus of this legislation is improving operations within d.h.s. by, among other things, boasting acquisition management, employee engagement, policymaking, stake holder engagement, and civil rights and civil liberties. additionally, h.r. 2825 seeks to enhance d.h.s.'s counterterrorism and intelligence efforts and the sharing of threat information with state, local, and regional fusion centers. i am particularly pleased at h.r. 2825 -- that h.r. 2825 rejects president trump's administrative proposal to cut assistance to state and local jurisdictions. not only does h.r. 2825 authorize homeland security first responder grants, train, and exercises, but it also restores funding for two ritical t.s.a. programs, a law
enforcement grant program and the program to fund security staffing at airport exit lanes. with respect to the urban area security initiative grant program, it authorizes funding at $800 million, $350 million above president donald trump's request. for the state homeland security grant program, it authorizes $600 million which is $250 million above president donald trump's request. additionally, the transit security, port security, nonprofit security and stone garden grant programs are authorized at levels well above president donald trump's request. when it comes to securing our nation, the american public expects d.h.s. to make smart investments. h.r. 2825 seeks to ensure that the policies and protections are
in place to do just that. it has been almost 15 years since 22 agencies were thrust together to create the third largest federal department. since that time, d.h.s. has never been re-authorized. today, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure which gives d.h.s. the direction and support it needs to safeguard our nation. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi reserves his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, the chairman of the transportation and in-- transportation infrastructure committee, mr. shuster, and thank him for working with me in getting to this day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 2825 and i want to commend and congratulate my two good
friends, chairman mccaul and ranking member thompson and the members of the homeland security committee and their staff for the work on this important bill. is congress, eight committee chairmen agreed to work together on this re-authorization. i did so because the security of our homeland is extremely important to the american people. i think it's our duty to work together to support chairmen on our priorities, especially large re-authorizations like this. the transportation committee marked up two authorizes included in this bill, the u.s. coast guard and the federal emergency management agency. the coast guard authorization supports service missions to enforce all federal laws on the high seas and in u.s. waters. it does so by providing a variety to have acquisition authorities, requiring a land-based unmanned aircraft program, and providing the coast guard parity with other armed
services in matters related to health care and retirement. on fee neark bill provides the first ever re-authorization of the agency to ensure accountability and strong congressional oversight. it includes a numb of provisions to help address 2 1st century challenges to disaster preparedness and response and support emergency response personnel. both our re-authorizations were bipartisan effort approved be bipartisan support. i thought it was important to move these measures through the committee on transportation infrastructure to support chairman mccaul and ranking member thompson and their legislative priorities. i want to thank them both again for their work, i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my teem. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from orlando.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise in spoth of this bill and particularly the provisions that -- provision that creates a new competitive grant program designed to preserve core capability gains achieved with previous urban area security initiative grant fnding. tissue funding. the program provides critical federal support to local law enforcement in large metropolitan areas to help them protect residents and visitors. ms. demings: i was police chief in orlando when they were approved for urasi fun funding and i know how critical such support is to orlando and other large metropolitan areas. orlando, a number one destination is now where an isis inspired terrorist took the lives of 49 people and injured many more. the deadliest in our nation's history.
at first -- as first responders from my district responded to the scene, the dedicated staff and analysts of the central florida intelligence exchange, a member d.h.s.'s national network of fusion centers, sprung into action together and share -- to gather and share information. together the courageous first responders and that group saved lives and helped to quickly identify the perpetrator. the capabilities that led to their successful response were created through previous grant investments, in particular the urban area security initiative. unfortunately, such federal funding capabilities and preparedness can be severely diminished or even lost. my concern is this. what will happen to the capabilities developed with previous grant support now that the funding is no longer available? the bill today would create a $39 million competitive grant program for former urasi cities
and make sure that core capability cains were supported and maintained. as secretary kelly acknowledged before the committee on homeland security last month, the threat to terrorism has metastasized. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute. mrs. demings: has metastasized around the country, whether it's new york city, the largest municipality in the country, or other small town in the middle of arkansas, the potential is about the same in my view for a lone wolf attack. that was how the secretary described it last week shes and i could not agree with him more. the demands on local law enforcement are more increasing, ever changing and more complex. i thank the chairman of the homeland security committee and our ranking member for their vision and commitment to keeping our homeland safe. do we have any greater purpose?
mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the record. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the statement will be in the record. the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from mississippi reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte, and i want to thank him for his close coordination in getting to this day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i thank the chairman of the homeland security committee for yielding and for his longtime work on this authorization. authorizing all of the cabinet departments is important, but it is crucial that congress re-authorize the department of homeland security. the american people must have faith that d.h.s. will serve to protect this nation and this authorization demonstrates congress' commitment to the critical missions being performed daily by this diverse department. this bill is the product of collaboration between several committees and the judiciary
committee greatly contributed to this bill as it authorizes three component agencies within the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee, the united states immigration and customs enforcement, united states citizenship and immigration services and the united states secret service. make no mistake, we authorize the department and its agencies to carry out each and every duty and utilize every tool necessary to keep america safe. while the bill does contain much of the authorizing language, as reported out of the judiciary committee, it does not reflect all of our important work on the i.c.e. nd ue aase authorizations. -- uasi authorizations. h.r. 2825 should have explicitly included such tools as the clear congressional intent to ensure that these agencies have them at their disposal in order toen enforce the laws. -- in order to enforce the laws.
i do support this bill. this congress must soon finish the job, however, and ensure that these agencies have the resources and legislative support that they need to enforce our immigration laws in the interior of the united states. the house must pass the judiciary committee's enforcement bills, including the davis-oliver act, the protection of children act, the legal work force act, among others. i intend to sees these bills on the house floor in the near future and i look forward to fulfilling our promise so d.h.s. can trulyly fulfill its -- truly fulfill its mission. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i recognize the gentlelady from california, ms. barragan, who represents the largest container port in the nation, the port of l.a.-long beach, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. barragan: mr. speaker, i rise to support h.r. 2825. i want to thank my colleagues on the homeland security committee for adopting my amendment to reimburse local law enforcement at airports. there has been an increase in attacks at airports, including at my home airport of l.a.x. and this funding is vital to keeping our airports secure and our economy moving. both sides compromised to move this bill forward, and the programs in it are critical to the security of our ports, our borders and homeland. going forward, we can do more to add more funding at the ports. i represent america's port, the port of los angeles. our ports are the nation's largest border crossings, so we must invest in funding security at the ports. the port security grants i proposed in my committee are crucial to the cyber and physical safety programs at the port of los angeles and long beach, and without increased funding, they have been forced to stop several innovative and
important projects. i will continue to fight for increased port security funding. i am determined to fill the staffing and funding gaps in maritime security and give our ports what they need to be safe and efficient. i urge my colleagues to support this re-authorization, but we have more work to do. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from mississippi reserves his time, and the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, chairman of the subcommittee on emergency preparedness and response and communications of the homeland security, mr. donovan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. donovan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 2825, the department of homeland security authorization act of 2017, which will re-authorize the department for
the very first time. as the chairman of the subcommittee on emergency preparedness, response and communications, i am particularly proud of the title 6 of division a which includes provisions of my legislation, the prepare act. the bill re-authorizes critical grant programs responsible for helping first responders while measuring the returns on these investments. it ensures first responders fusion centers, receive information on cybersecurity threats. it requires fema to assess how homeland security grant funding has close capability gaps and provide grant recipients with best practices to ensure fiscally responsible use of taxpayer dollars. it requires the department to consider the impact of emerging technology while supporting fforts to achieve national interoperable communications.
the grants' authorization provisions have received the support of the police commissioner of the city of new york, the international association of fire chiefs, the national fusion center association, the major county this was association and the council of mayors. i ask unanimous consent to include their letters of support in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. donovan: i am also pleased a number of the provisions provided by the committee on homeland security are included in division f of this bill. these provisions authorize fema's senior law enforcement advisor, ensure an appropriate focus on good management practices at fema, support vital training programs for first responders and codify the office of disability integration and coordination to ensure individuals with disabilities are integrated into disaster preparedness and response efforts. i look forward to continuing to
work with subcommittee chairman barletta of the transportation and infrastructure committee. i want to commend chairman mccaul for his leadership in getting this bill through the committee and onto the floor. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back his time. the gentleman from texas reserves his time, and the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from houston, texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank he chairman and ranking member of the committee for doing an historic re-authorization of this historic department that came in the backdrop of the most heinous and singular terrorist act in terms of the last part of the beginning part
of the 21st century to come together with this important statement about securing the homeland. this year will mark the 15th year of the department of homeland security. the national effort to ensure the homeland is to ensure a safe, secure and resilient homeland against terrorism and other hazards where american interests, aspiration and ways of life can thrive. this is what i hope this bill will do. i want to take special note of two of the subagencies in this bill in particular. aking note of the killing of geraldo hernandez, the first t.s.a. officer to be killed in the line of duty in los angeles and the machete attack at the louis armstrong international airport. we owe a great deal to carol rochelle. we owe a great deal of appreciation and thanks to the
transportation security administration and the t.s.o.'s and to be on the front line. i also express my appreciation through the secret service who are continuing to work to protect america's most important leadership, the president, in particular, thank them for their service. i also want to make mention of the fact that i was very appreciative of the number of amendments i was able to get in. the jackson lee amendments included mandates that -- part of the department of homeland security as a new provision to the duties of the office of civil rights and civil liberties which directs is part of the mission to preserve individual liberty, fairness and equality under the law. my second amendment would provide -- mr. thompson: i yield an additional minute to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady and thank the ranking member. the second amendment deals with the multiyear acquisition
strategy, keeps pace with changes in technology. this amendment will make sure that the agency's purchases are most up-to-date. my third amendment deals with the fusion center and will develop, keep up to date and make available information to to support foote centers across america. and the chief medical officer will be allowed to enter into m.o.u.'s so they can be most helpful across the country. and the other deals with the national preparedness, a special director in urban areas. we have oversight over i.c.e. and u.s. -- and the immigration services. i think it's important to note that i.c.e. has to be responsible, not seeking to raid and deport individuals who have been in this country, who are paying their taxes and who have options to be able to stay in this country and i hope this authorization or
re-authorization recognizes that we need comprehensive immigration reform and that i.c.e. is important but it must restrain its reckless way of deporting individuals. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from mississippi reserves. and the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, chairman of the subcommittee on coast guard, maritime transportation of the transportation and infrastructure committee, mr. hunter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. hunter: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman. h.r. 2825 includes h.r. 2518, the coast guard authorization act of 2017 and division e. the coast guard authorization act is a product of bipartisan efforts of the transportation and infrastructure committee, specifically through chairman shuster's leadership and the efforts of ranking member defazio and ranking member garamendi and our great staff, dave and john. the coast guard authorization act includes an authorization of funding for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to support the coast guard and its service
members. it's important to remember the coast guard is one of the five armed forces. even though it is outside the department of defense, the service plays a critical role in protecting our country. it is unique in being the only armed force with law enforcement authorities and this combination allows the service to perform its multitude of missions. the committee on transportation and infrastructure has been overseeing the coast guard for more than two decades and move legislation to support the service in each congress since 1995. the text of the coast guard authorization act is a product of hearings, discussions with the coast guard and regulated industries. the bill does four main things -- clarifies acquisition authorities to be used by the coast guard, updates certain services, amends a variety of coast guard regulatory authorities and provides regulatory relief for fishing and maritime transportation industries. this coast guard authorization act is a great bill. i urge members to support it and passage of the broader bill, h.r. 2825. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california
yields back, and the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, chairman of the task force for denying entry of terrorist into the united states, mr. fwalger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gallagher: i would like to acknowledge and thank chairman mccaul for his leadership in undertaking this effort and as we take the next step in undertaking the homeland security authorization bill. i sponsored the intelligence rotational assignment act because i believe we need to make sure our intelligence agency has the boast and -- best and most robust training in the world. the chief intelligence officer identified the node to strengthen the work force at the agency by giving intelligence analysts the tools they need to
succeed. i served as an intelligence in the for 10 years military and i know the value of intelligenceage si -- analysts gaining ex-pores -- experience in different mission areas to broaden their views. this allows them to gain experience in all the agencies that are part of the larger communities. this will ensure we are building and strengthening expertise along mes at d.h.s. in order to keep the clint safe. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from texas reserves reserves, the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. katko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. katko: i rise today in strong support of h.r. 2825.
this critical piece of legislation is a chance for congress to fulfill its duty to oversee the missions, programs and functioning of the department of homeland security and its component agencies. as chairman of the subcommittee on transportation and protective security, i am particularly please to support the important ro provisions of this bill relating to the transportation security administration and the secret service. this bill makes measurable and lasting improvements to the way in which we protect the traveling public on aviation and surface transportation systems. it also povidse much leadership and continuity to t.s.a. by establishing a five-year term for its administrator. it improves vetting of aviation workers, enhances emergency preparedness to prepare against terrorist attacks and bolsters the department's focus on aviation cybersecurity issues. passing this legislation will ensure that t.s.a. prioritizes its development and procurement
of new passenger screening technologies and ramping up deployment of explosive detection kay neighbors in the aviation and surface transportation sectors. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from mississippi reserves this egentleman is recognized. the wrelt from texas has four minutes left. mr. mccaul: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from louisiana a member of the homeland security committee, mr. higgins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of passage of h.r. 2825, the department of homeland security authorization act of 2017, which i'm honored to be an original co-sponsor. the threats facing american families are real and rapidly evolving. since the original authorization 15 years ago, d.h.s. has never been re-authorized, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of congressional oversight. i'd like to thank chairman mccaul and his staff for their work on making the re-authorization act passenger
-- package a reality. national security is an issue that affects every man, woman and child, republican or democrat, in our nation. this bill will go a long way to ensuring that d.h.s. remains mission ready to continue protecting our homeland. this legislation accomplishes several key things. it creates efficiencies that protect the people's treasure and holds programs accountable, it offers congressional guidance for agencies within d.h.s. such as immigration and customs enforcement and the u.s. citizenship and imgreags services to bolster our nation's response to illegal immigration and support boots on the ground front line defenders. i urge my colleagues to support the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from kansas, mr. estes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized if one minute. mr. estes: thank you, mr. speaker.
i rise today in support of h.r. 2825, the homeland security authorization act. america faces mounting threats to our national security from around the globe. this includes the increased threats faced by islamist terrorism, foreign cyberattacks and an unsecured southern border this bill will improve the department of homeland security by making it more efficient and improving its processes so that the d.h.s. can face security threats head on this bill promotes the domestic sharing of counterterrorism information and calls for regular reports to congress on cost saving and efficiency activities, including con solation of facilities and response to operational surges. i believe this bill is vital to ensuring america's continued safety. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. garrett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: there are two amendments to this important piece of legislation, i want to thank the chairman of the
committee for allowing us the opportunity to be heard and participate in this process. first is -- first amendment ensures there's senior executive, right now we have more tail of the tra gone than teeth of the dragon. we need to make sure we're focusing our assets efficiency. this will save other $7 million in salary alone. the second ensure there's an oversight of the home lan security grant program, intended to protect the homeland so we demonstrate we are being good stewards of the public's dollars while ensuring the safest nation we can. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves, the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm -- i have no more speakers and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is prepared to close. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i'm prepared to close as well, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized to close. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker.
h.r. 2825 was unanimously approved by the committee on homeland security on june 14, 2017. after 39 democratic amendments focused on strengthening the underlying bipartisan bill were accepted. to make this legislative package more complete, subsequent committee consideration text was approved by the transportation and infrastructure and judiciary committees was added. i urge members to join me in supporting passage of this important homeland security legislation that includes provisions that have the support of groups as diverse as the international association of fire chiefs, the u.s. conference of mayors, national fusion center association, the jewish federations of north america, the american federation of government employees, and american public transportation association. with that, mr. speaker, let me
compliment chairman -- the chairman for a job well done. he did it. i don't know how much time i have but i'll yield the balance of my time to him. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields the balance of his time to the chair. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. speaker. let me give my heartfelt thanks to the ranking member for his work on this important legislation, first ever. it was a real team effort on both sides of the aisle. i want to thank all the staff on both sides of the aisle, roslyn, jenny who worked tirelessly, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters between myself and other members of the committee, as of january 11, 2017, memorandum of understanding, signed by myself and seven other committee chairmen. in conclusion of this debate it's important to remember that
comprehensive re-authorization of the department of homeland security has never been done before. while various re-authorizations have been tried in the past, we finally have a chance to get it across the finish line and have et signed into law. so let's stand together as republicans and democrats and show the people we represent both parties, that both parts can work with one another, by putting our national security over politics. this legislation is not just about good governance or bureaucratic reforms, it's absolutely essential in making sure we are able to defeat the grave and growing threats facing the united states. once again, i want to thank the ranking member and all the staff and leadership as well and their staff and also all the members of the legislative council who got us to this point here today. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.
all time has been yielded back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2825 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in fare of taking a vote by the yeas -- in favor of taking a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.
for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, first, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on house bill 2218 -- on house bill 218. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 454 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 218. the chair appoints the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, to preside over the committee of
the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 218, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for the exchange of federal land and nonfederal land in the state of alaska for the construction of a road between king cove and cold bay. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. as we begin this bill which is totally logical i'd like to yield five minutes to the author of the bill, the only representative alaska has on this floor, and someone who
understands this issue because he has been dealing with it for a number of years, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young. mr. young: i ask unanimous onsent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. -- the chair: without objection. mr. young: mr. speaker, members of the committee, this is an issue that should have been settled a long time ago. passed a s congress land exchange piece of legislation similar to this, we did make one mistake, we put into it the ability to have fish and wildlife make recommendations. even then the recommendations were on the positive side and decided administration under the secretary of the 11-mile not to build an
aleuto save my people the people, in favor of a goose, and people that live in king cove weren't really considered. now this is a road, it is 11 miles long that goes basically not through the izembek refuge but through some airsa along the -- areas along the edge. the argument that you'll hear is it disturbs the geese. it disturbs the eel grass the goose an loons live on. the road will bother them. ironic, the refuge itself, which this refuge is not a new area. it's been inhabited by man frackly in the last generation and they built about 70 miles of road. to supply a military base called
cold bay which is the airport we're trying to seek this road to connect with king cove. and they actually they take tourists and take the bus and go out the same road, not the one we want to build, but a road right next to the so-called lagoon and the eel grass for the tourists and for some reason tourists don't bother geese. that's what i can't quite understand, but it's already for them to do that but not allow the people of king cove to save their lives. since the refusal to build this road, 19 people, my constituents, aleut people from king cove have died because they could not be evacuated to the airport to fly them out. some people will say, well, they got an airport. blowing or go
across a boat in 30-foot waves. we hear they built them and they got a hovercraft. they didn't want it. they knew it wouldn't work. the clinton administration said oh, it's our solution, it's a better solution and won't disturb the geese. they accepted the use of it and it did fail. if the people in the back of the room would be quiet, i'd appreciate it. that's one way to get it done. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the hovercraft does not work and yet we'll have an amendment later on. the area that did not ask for it is going to be forced to pay the money back. i didn't hear anybody, by the way, say because the levee failed and we put money into it we had to pay -- they had to pay the money back.
so let's really consider what we're talking about here. we're talking about 11 miles, single lean, gravel-covered road to provide access to cold bay for people in a community that do not have access to a hospital which is 600 miles away in anchorage. we had one lady evacuated at a cost of $250,000 by the coast guard, the helicopter crashed and she lost her life. we had two other elders that ent across with a boat, a crab boat. they had to put the people into a crab pot. because there was no way to get to this airport. so mr. chairman, i'm suggesting to my fellow colleagues, let's do what's right. this does no harm to the refuge. in fact, saves lives, gives them an opportunity to take and experience the medical care that all the rest of us have. let's do the right thing today.
let's not be caught into special interests and say it's going to hurt the refuge. i know many even got phone calls. oh, this will be terrible. truth of the matter is it's not terrible. it's the right thing to do. so i ask my colleagues, let's vote yes on this bill. let's vote no on amendments. let's do what's right today in the house of representatives. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. today we are being asked to mandate a land exchange that will put a road through a designated wilderness area inside the izembek national wildlife refuge in alaska. if that sounds familiar that's because we have been down this road before. after years of prodding from the alaska delegation, the public lands management act of 2009 authorized this exchange and the eventually construction
of the road. however, that 2009 authorization was contingent upon a determination by the secretary of interior that the road was in the public interest. the fish and wildlife service has spent nearly five years preparing a full environmental impact statement in order to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed road and to determine if viable alternatives existed. during the lengthy and public process, the agency held 130 public meetings, reviewed thousands of public comments, 97% of which were opposed to the road. ultimately the interior department determined that building a road through a one of the kind wilderness area is will stified because it destroy an irreplaceable ecosystem and there are other ways to improve transportation in the area. this is not just a simple trail through the woods. it's a road through a narrow train of islands and lagoons.
its construction requires the development of bridges, installation of culverts and pipes in the dredge and fill nearly 40 acres of wetlands. the izembek national wildlife refuge supports numerous species that we have international treaty obligations to protect, including the entire global population of the pacific -- one of the only populations of tundra swauns. bears, cariboo and other wildlife. now, before -- before the point can be made, let me just say i want to be clear, i have never been to the refuge. opposition to this road is not based on personal opinion or spite or ignorance or because we love birds more than people. opposition to this road is based on extensive public comments and a long, careful scientific review of its merits
by conservation professionals. the table of contents for the environmental review, not the review itself but just the table of contents, is just 28 pages long. it comes with 10 abend cis. the department of sbeer -- apendecis. the department of interior did its home work. now we are being asked to ignore that scientific analysis and ram this road right through the refuge knowing the damage it will do. the consequences of a decision like that are known. they are not unintended. the road through an alaskan wilderness is not justified. this particular road is not justified and it's not necessary and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chairman, i would like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman.
the chair: the gentleman is ecognized. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 218, the king cove land exchange act. i'd like to thank congressman don young for his tireless work on this pressing issue. 19 people, the cost of decades of inaction by the federal government, mr. speaker, is 19 american lives. access to a hospital is something most americans can fortunately take for granted. for many emergency services are an ambulance ride away. not for the citizens of king cove, alaska. adjacent to the islands, the 1,000 residents of king cove, alaska, are connected to hospitals in the region via a small runa wand a -- runway and a ferry. residents have been cut off from hospitals and necessary supplies.
in truly dire emergencies, king cove residents have two choices. one is to pray a boat captain will brave enormous seas or wait until the coast guard can dispatch a medevac helicopter. mr. speaker, allow me to read some of the stories of those who have braved the sea or held out until help arrived. take, for example, lonnie who had to hoist his ailing father out of a fishing boat during a blizzard. after a perilous three-hour journey to cold bay, the sea was so rough his boat could not dock. brandal had to tie a rope around his father and allow him to be pulled to safety. to coat brandal, it was not a good scenario at all. but if we had stayed here one more day, even 10 or 12 more ours, he would not have lived. or take etta who went into labor early. unable to safely leave king cove during a storm, it took the coast guard eight hours to arrive to rescue her.
i was lucky, she says. the coast guard was in the area. that is really what it was. they were in the area. mr. speaker, this is shameful. our citizens should not have to wait hours for a medevac or brave treacherous seas while we sit here and debate this issue. no american should have to perish while we argue whether or not a ref unal will be better off -- refuge will be better off with 81 or 70 miles of gravel road. i urge my colleagues to listen lonnie ories of etta, and brandal. i want you to think about the 19 americans who perished for want of a gravel road. mr. speaker, i strongly support h.r. 218, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: continue to reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: let me yield five
minutes to the chairman. are you ready? let me yield five minutes to a different subcommittee chairman from the resources committee, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, is recognized. mr. gosar: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 218, the king cove road land exchange act, introdeuced by my good friend and western caucus vice chairman for indian affairs and oceans, mr. don young. h.r. 218 authorizes a commonsense land exchange between the u.s. fish and wildlife service and the state of alaska that will save lives and taxpayer money. the bill provides significant benefits for all parties, including tribal members, supporters of fish and wildlife, supporters of the environment and supporters of the izembek national wildlife refuge, and most importantly, the people living in the surrounding areas that need access to critical medical and
health care services. local communities in the state of alaska have been trying to build a one-lean, 11-mile gravel road to link king cove and cold bay for nearly three decades. the bill authorizes the transfer of more than 43,000 acres of alaska state land in exchange for just 206 acres of federal land. these 43,000-plus acres will be added to the izembek national wildlife refuge in order to protect fish, wildlife and the environment. the one-lean, 11-mile noncommercial road that will be built as a result of this legislation is necessary in order to provide access to emergency medical assistance for american citizens and native populations. the bill will save taxpayers money. since 2013 alone, 5 emergency medevacs have been required -- 55 emergency medevacs have been required to get people in need to hospitals. many have required the coast guard as inclimate weather
prevents aerial flights on an average of 100 days per year and results in cancellations of more than 40% of flights in king cove. in order to receive life-saving care, local residents must often fly 600 miles to anchorage. connecting king cove to cold bay airport will allow the tribes and local residents to get the emergency needs they heard. ncai has passed formal resolutions of support in 2007, 2014 and 2015. the 2015 ncai resolution stated, and i quote, the people of king cove are continuing to seek justice for this basic right to safe and dependable transportation access for emergency and routine medical health which is an expectation that most americans, indian and non-indian, take for granted.
because of american public health safety and other factors, the ncai support the rights of the aleut people of dependable transportation access and calls upon congress to immediately pass new legislation approving a land corridor for the construction of a permanent lifesaving road linking the community of king cove to cold bay airport. i couldn't agree more with the national congress of american indians. these people and these local communities have a fundamental right to basic health care. let's pass this bill so we can build an 11-mile gravel road and ensure they receive these basic services. i thank the gentleman from alaska for his leadership and respondoring this much-needed legislation. -- sponsoring this much-needed legislation. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, is recognized. mr. grijalva: we've heard the argument and we'll repeatedly hear the argument that the road connecting to king cove to cold bay is needed for health and
safety purposes. while it is true that the road will be used for medical emergencies, there's a lot of evidence pointing to another objective. if you look at the decades long effort to build this road, it becomes clear there's always been a commercial purpose in mind. king cove is home to one of the largest fish processing facilities operated by peter pan sea foods and subsidiary of a japanese company, one of the largest seafood companies in the world. fishing is the backbone of king cove -- of the king cove economy and has always been one of the reasons for the road. let's look at the facts. in 1994, the city of king cove passed a resolution to exercise the positive socioeconomic impacts of a 20-mile road linking king cove to the cold bay airport. the resolution did not mention any need to use the road for health or safety or for emergency situations of residents. in 2005, the bureau
participated in public meetings and presented their vision for a hub airport for cold bay. this included cold storage capability for fish from king cove and other communities awaiting air freights. in 2010 as part of a fish and wildlife e.i.s. for the land xchange, we are debating today , an assemblyman said they would transport fresh product. and finally on may 25 of this year, alaska governor bill walker sent a letter to the trump administration and asked for, i quote, isolated drents of king cove to cold bay airport, enabling access to health services and the movement of goods and people between king cove and cold bay. when you add all this up, the evidence is pretty convincing. sure, the road will be used for emergency evacuations, but it will also be used to transport fresh product to cold bay to be sold throughout asia and the
rest of the world. despite language in the bill seeking to prohibit commercial use of the road, once it is built, this prohibition will be incredibly difficult if not impossible to enforce. this is an incredibly remote area and the fish and wildlife service does not have the resources or staff capacity to police the use of the road and i verve. . -- and i verve. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i yield to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> we have just heard a theme we have heard over and over again from the other side. it's why america's economy has been stagnating and on hold the past eight years. mr. mcclintock: god forbid there should be more jobs to support families in this struggling community.
god forbid our roads be used to get products to people who need them. it's hard for me to understand how a one-lane gravel road is going to accommodate all that commerce. accommodate g to is people who need access to the nearby city of cold bay. i want you to imagine being a resident of that tiny little community. its only outside access is by a gravel airstrip and a little, tiny harbor. it's just 20 miles from the city of cold bay. cold bay has got a regional airport, they've got medical facilities, but there's no road connecting that little town with the life sustaining civilization just 20 miles away. we all know of the exceptionally harsh weather conditions in that area. they routinely prevent air and sea travel out of king cove. if you're in trouble in that weather, there's help just down the road, but there is no road.
why is there no road? well, we've just heard a sampling of why. it's not because of natural barriers. it's not for lack of need or financing. it's because a national wildlife refuge and a section of the alaska peninsula national wildlife refuge is in between these communities and the federal government and left wing environmental activists just won't hear of it. for over 20 years, the people of king cove have begged for this life-saving road for their safety. not a major interstate. not a parkway. just a one-lane road. it requires only 206 acres out of the 59 million acres of designated federal wilderness in alaska. just in the last four years, this has been pointed out, 55 emergency medical evacuations have been made. a numb of which required coast guard involvement or extended patient waiting times or both.
mr. westerman has told us just last year of the king cove woman in her 70's suffering from heart issues, medevaced from king cove to cold baby coast guard vessel after high winds prevented an air ambulance from landing at king cove. in the end it took the woman over seven hours to reach a hospital in anchorage. a road between king cove and cold bay would go a long way to prevent similar situations from occurring and it would provide a potentially life-saving evacuation route for king sove citizens in the event of an emergency and if it help prossvide adegreesal jobs for that little community, i say so much the better. congressman young has tried for more than a decade to get this done but has been stymied by left-wing environmental activists and ideological se lots in the bureaucracy. during our hear thing bill, opposition came not from any of the communities involved, but from environmental activists, hundreds of miles away from king
cove, although they seem to have a mouth priest here in this house. in exchange for use of the 206 achers of federal land for this road, the state of alaska is willing to transfer 40,000 acres of state land to the federal government. this bill facilitates that transfer and after two decades finally gives permission for this little road to be built. it's long everdue, i salute congressman young for his persistent pursuit of this for the people of king coe and ask for speedy adoption by this house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. we're not saying that the residents of king cove do not deserve reliable transportation option, neither did the e.i.s. the e.i.s. included anage soifs nonroad transportation options at would piggyback off the $37.5 million congress has already invested in king cove's
infrastructure. the u.s. army -- the e.i.s. asked the u.s. army corps of engineers to look at options to connect king cove with cold bay. the report identified three viable alterntives, including a new airport that is capable of supporting aircraft that can gh directly to rank raj, a heliport, and an ice breaker ship that could make the trip when others cowl not. options exist. that's why i urge a no vote on this by mr. shish: i reserve. 124r0eu7 -- the speaker pro tempore: the entleman reserves. mr. grijalva: i yelled to the gentleman from floridamark deutch, such time as he may consume.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. deutch: i rise to oppose this bill today sfr a number of reasons, but building a road through a congressionally designated wilderness area is without precedent. there are lots of other reasons but i would note that at least today's debate shifts the focus of this congress in the right direction. when we look to alaska it is just -- it requires a gaze just a little bit further into russia. and i only wish that what we were debating today was the sanctions bill that passed the senate by a vote of 98-2 and the reason that we should be debating that bill today is readily apparent to anyone who has been paying attention to recent events. just this morning we read of the president's interview with "the new york times" and we think about the president who took
action to fire the acting attorney general, to urge the f.b.i. director to go easy on flynn in the flynn investigation, fired the f.b.i. director because of the russia investigation and just now in an interview yesterday threatened the acting f.b.i. director, the attorney general of the united states, and the person carrying out the investigation of russia and the potential ties between his administration and russia, all of this gets to the larger point which is, we're getting ready to go home at the end of the next week for august and we have failed, if we go home without passing the sanctions bill and getting tough on russia, we will have failed the american people on a vital national security issue. we will be showing weakness at a time when the american people expect us to see strength, expect us to stand up to russian attempts to interfere with our election. to stand up with when -- to stand up when we learn about an eight-person, for now,
eight-person meeting put together with the sole purpose according to the emails of providing information to help president trump, then-candidate trump, get elected with the help of the russian government. we don't know where this will all lead, i acknowledge that. but it's because of what we do not about russia that we have to act, not against the administration mischaracterization to suggest this. this bill passed 98-2 in the senate. this bill will enable us to move forward in a bipartisan way to stand up to russia. it is for that reason i i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up h.r. 9203, the russia sanctions bills that passed the senate 98-2. when has this body seen that kind of bipartisanship? i ask that that bill be brought up so we can vote on it and not disappoint the american people before we leave here in august. that's what we ought to be doing. i hope we'll have a chance to do
it now. i ask unanimous consent that we bring up the russia sanctions bill to debate and pass that bill today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's request cannot be entertained in the -- the chair: the gentleman's request cannot be entertain in the committee of the whole. >> point of parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman will state his inquiry. >> may the bill that passed the senate 98-2 be brought up for consideration when we are no longer meeting as committee of the whole. the chair: request may be made at that time. mr. deutch: and one further point of parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman may state his inquiry. mr. deutch: when we have an opportunity to make the unanimous request, unanimous consent request to bring up the russia sanctions bill to get tough on russia as the american people expect us to do, is that something that would require,
when i ask for unanimous consent, can the speaker alone efuse to grant that consent? the chair: the chair will not respond to a hypothetical question. mr. deutch: i thank the chair and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman reserve the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: may i inquire of the ranking member, do you have anyier main speakers left on this issue? mr. grijalva: other than myself, no. mr. bishop: then i reserve, i'm ready to go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: let me deal with one claim the claim that people will die if we don't pass h.r. 218 is wrong. it's wrong because there's no evidence to back it up, and it's wrong because using this over-the-top rhetoric is irresponsible.
-- we don't oppose this bill because we value the life of berds over people. but there are viable alternatives that will address any legitimate public safety concern. people's lives do not hang in the balance. we can protect public health and the refuge, if we abandon this bill and work together on a better solution. this is indeed a remote area. that's why many residents choose to live there in the first place. there are fully accustomed to the challenges to come when living on the last frontier. to address these challenges, the froth has appropriated tens of millions of dollars to this community for better medical and other facilities. we have communities in arizona,est plirble in arizona that would appreciate $37.5 million to address their health and safety concerns as well.
the local government used some of that money to buy a hovercraft that could make the airport run much faster than the road will ever allow. the local community, not the federal government, elected to stop using the hovercraft. surely if people's lives were at stake, the local government would not have made that kind of decision. we have legitimate policy differences on this bill. the e.i.s. convinced many on our side that this is not a worthwhile proposal. let's debate these findings calmly and rationally and that would serve the public in this debate and look for a solution that both protects people's health and the refuge. with that, i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. besh shop: i yield myself the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: this is an issue people have for telethree decades been trying to calmly discuss and find an alternative.
and unfortunately, the people of alaska who have been engaged in thevert for the last three-plus decades have been rebuff at every turn in which the only answer they got was the federal government here in washington giving them an alternative and forcing upon them an alternative that flat out didn't work. and it hasn't and it hasn't worked in the last seven years. one of the things we should realize this idea of building this road is not new. the house has voted to build this road. the senate has voted to build this road. unfortunately they didn't vote it on the same bill. except in 2009 when there was a piece of legislation that went through both the house and the senate which was very clear at the time that it was the intent of both the house and the senate to build the road but it did require of the interior department to do the nepa
process. they took four years. now, think of that. it was in 2009 when the bill was passed and the intent of congress was very clear. four years later, the interior department finally got around to doing the study, a study which i might add had five options that were added to it, one of which was to do nothing and the interior department shows after four years of study as their preferred option to do nothing and, therefore, all the efforts and anguish of these people in alaska went to naught cause a bureaucracy here decided to despite what the house and senate said they knew best and despite what the ople of alaska wanted they nude best. his is not about -- alaska wanted they knew best.
00 new -- tting up 4 new acres for 200 acres for a road. there is a 30-mile road that exists. the only problem is only 19 of the 30 miles are constructed. they exist. what alaska is simply asking, give us the last 11 so the road that does exist can be used, can be used for them, for their medical needs, for their recreation if they want. it's brought up heaven forbid this might be used for economic advantage. i don't know why this community around 1,000 people, about 80% are native alaskans would ever have the audacity to think they ought to have a job or the audacity to think that maybe they should try and use
something that is there to further their economic ability to actually earn a living. ow uppety can you get? those of us sitting here 6,000 miles away really have the superior wisdom to tell those people living in king cove should actually live their life. we said it in the 1990's. you can't have a road because we have a philosophical opposition to it. instead, we'll spend a heck of a lot of money to come up with a hovercraft that doesn't work and is too expensive and is useless and no longer exists. and we are saying, no, no, no. you can't have access to the mainland. you can't have access to an all-weather airport. you can't have access to medical, jobs. instead, let's come up with another stupid idea that won't work as well when the solution is simply to build a road. 11 miles to connect an existing road so people who live in king
cove can do it. you've already heard the data that's been presented. in the last 30 years, 19 people have died. 19 people have died and it can be traced specifically to the fact they didn't have access to health care. in the last three years, they've had over 50 cases when medevac had to be used. very expensively by the coast guard to try to help people out there. you wouldn't have to do it if you simply had a silly road. the 70-year-old woman who had to wait seven hours suffering a heart attack before she could get medical care, the woman in labor who had to go six hours before she could get someplace to get medical care, the man who had the saw accident who had to wait 12 hours to get medical care simply because there is not an 11-mile single lean gravel road to connect with the rest -- lane gravel road to connect with the rest of the road, and we are trying to tell the people of alaska
what's best for them, what's depood for them and that's emotional and -- good for them and what's emotional and irrational. this will continue until we finally say people should have a right to decide for themselves what is best for them. and the people who live in this community want a road. it's not going to hurt anything. it's 200 acres. and this is a land exchange. actually i have to admit i don't like that. alaska is giving up 40,000 acres -- 40,000 acres so they can do 200 acres of a road. i think that's an exorbitant fee that's being -- that's being extracted from the state of alaska just so they can give these people, majority -- the overwhelming majority of native alaskans, the opportunity of having access to their community so they can get medical care or whatever else they need so they can have it and we're sitting here because we don't want to precedent.
this is the right thing to do. we should do this. we should have done it back in the clinton administration when it first came up. we should have gone through with it in 2009 when they finally passed it in both the house and the senate and then had to wait four years for the interior department to study the issue and their conclusion was, let's not do anything. that doesn't exist. it's time for us to do something to help people, to put people above ideology. pass the bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original for purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print 115-27. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part c of house report 115-235. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject for demand of division of the question. it's now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 115-235. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. tsongas: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 115-235 offered by ms. tsongas of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 454, the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes.
the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is very straightforward. it restores a bipartisan provision to the bill, one that was actually approved by congress and signed into law by president obama. in 2009, congress approved the king cove land exchange under the condition that it be found to be in the national interest by the secretary of the interior. after a transparent four-year review that included over 70,000 public comments and 130 blic meetings, secretary jewell ultimately concluded it was not in the national interest and the land exchange was not approved. nevertheless, the legislation that was approved and signed into law in 2009 with democratic and republican support included language that should the road be approved would have required the state of alaska, federal agencies and local residents to develop a mitigation plan for the road so
that impacts of migratory birds, wildlife and wetlands are minimized. the land exchange language that was passed by congress in 2009 is similar to the legislation that we are considering today with a few notable exceptions including the removal of the section requiring this environmental mitigation plan. it is common practice for any new road construction project to include an environmental mitigation plan, especially a road through such a sensitive area. i urge adoption of my commonsense amendment, to reinsert this bipartisan language, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: mr. chairman, this is an amendment that is mischievous in trying to defeat what we're trying to do today. the amendment is wholly unnecessary to mitigate impacts of migratory birds in izembek national wildlife refuge.
the single lane, noncommercial 1 miles has no effect on the wildlife, the waterfowl or any kind. it would allow, again, the secretaries or one of the other secretaries of let'ser part like fish and wildlife -- lesser part like fish and wildlife to delay the project. it's an effort, again, to delay the project. we didn't expect -- and by the way, when we say there are 70,000 or more public comments, there was less than 100 from alaska. these were outside comments. this whole idea of public comments sometimes doesn't make sense when they are nowhere near the izembek refuge or the road. sometimes we get caught in this idea, oh, we get all these public comments against something or for something, let's look at where they're from. this amendment, as i say, it's mischievous, it's trying to kill the project, should not be done, it's being pushed by the
environmental community, again, to kill this project, as i mentioned in my opening statement, you probably got some phone calls. frankly, they don't know what they're talking about. so i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, attempt, again, to stop this road. let's build this road for the people of king cove and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: i think it's important to keep in mind that the lands that this road seeks to cross are federally protected public lands. they are managed and protected on behalf of all americans to specifically protect wildlife habitat, and as such, when changes like this are being debated, all americans have the right to register their opinion. they are also designated wilderness, the highest level of protection that the american people can bestow upon a piece of public land, and we in congress are stewards of that mandate. the road proposed by this legislation could do
irreparable harm to the fragile environment of the wildlife refuge if mitigation steps are not taken. as the department of the interior stated in 2013, this area is, quote, a globally significant landscape that supports an abundance and diversity of wildlife unique to the refuge that years of analysis shows us would be irretrievabley damaged by construction and operation of the proposed road, unquote. the department also found that construction of the road would lead to, quote, significant degradation of irreparable ecological resources that would not be offset to be received under an exchange, unquote. my amendment simply reinserts bipartisan language that was approved by congress and signed into law by 2009 that will help mitigate some but not all of the negative environmental impacts in the event that the road is constructed. i thank you and i continue to
reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to retrieve my time. i made a mistake and said yield. i should have said reserve. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: i thank you, gentleman, and lady, for allowing me to speak on this. let me stress the fact that this land, the federal government is going to receive 43,000 acres for an additional -- for additional wilderness for 240 acres. i mean, i don't know how many deals you worked and you get that kind of deal. this is a great thing for the refuge. it's the right thing for the refuge. and, again, we go about this bipartisan legislation, we expected in 2009 to have this road built. that's why we're back here. it's not the first time. 40 years this community has been trying to get this road built. we thought we had it in 2009, and because of the administrations were unfavorable to it and the
slowly of the report of the fish and wildlife and then having the secretary of interior saying, no, there are other alternatives, when they did not work. so i'm suggesting respectfully, this amendment is trying to kill the bill. it's not trying to do and solve a solution. so i respectfully i'd say this, again, vote against this amendment. let's defeat this amendment, and i yield to the chairman. i reserve. i reserve. ms. tsongas: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: i yield to my chairman. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: can i inquire how much time is left and are there other speakers on this amendment? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. ms. tsongas: i have no other speakers. i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from massachusetts has two minutes.
mr. bishop: let me yield back to mr. young and i'll continue to reserve. mr. young: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from assachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to remind my distinguished colleague from alaska who i know cares deeply about his constituents that in 2009 he did vote for the omnibus land package that included the language that i today would like to see become part of the lgs before us today. mr. chairman, my amendment is simple. it restores bipartisan language that was passed by congress and that congressman young supported and signed into law on similar legislation authorizing this land exchange back in 2009. e road through izembek national wildlife refuge is expected to have a detrimental impact on lands protected for the benefit of all americans.
this amendment will help mitigate some of but not all of those impacts if this road is built. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. mr. young: i yield one minute to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i can say don't support this, even though i vote northward package, there were bills in that package i supported but this was a bad bill. this language is the reason that we don't have the solution right now. remember the solution was, no action. not to do anything whatsoever. i understand there's some sometimes we have distance issues that come here, the gentlelady from massachusetts has not an inch of b.l.m. land in your entire state. only 3% of the land is controlled by the federal government, which is different than having 90% of the land controlled by the federal government as it is in alaska. i would contend if there were
any other part of the -- any other part of the country that had this exist, this would not be allowed. these people, 80% of them, are native alaskan. they don't have the lung power to come up here and express for themselves they don't have the special to to hire groups to come express for them. i yield back the remainderer of my time if i have any to mr. young. mr. young: how much time do we have left? the chair: the gentleman has one minute. mr. young: we talk about this legislation, we thought nine years ago or eight years ago that we would have this road built. there's no federal money involved in it. it is a road that needs to be done. and if we reinstate this language, what will happen there will be a time where the road again will be studied and won't be built. 40 years.
40 years they waited. lost lives. and we're talking about letting the federal government get involved again. i'm saying this is the time to build a road. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. tsongas: i would like to request a recorded vote. the chair: pusuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 115-235. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 115-235, offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 454, the gentleman
from alaska, mr. young, and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. chairman, i moment -- my amendment, in order to fully ensure this emergency route will not be slowed down by unnecessary regulatory delays this amendment makes minor changes to section 7 to conform to the tech of h. rmp 218 with the senate text s. 101. section 7 of the underlying bill waives the nepa process because the nepa process has been completed in 2014 under sec he tear joule. environmental impact statement has been published. secretary jewell ignored the health and public safety aspects that killed people because we don't have a vode. -- a road. there's no reason to make the people go through the time-consuming, expensive process again when it was done so recently. the people of king cove fought for this road for 40 years. people have literally tied because of the welcome of this road to cold bay that has a 6,000 foot airstrip.
again, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve. the chair: prurpfut -- for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: i rise in opposition to thement. while it was described as a technical amendment to conform the bill to the senate version, it does much more than make a simple technical correction. mr. young's amendment expands the nepa waiver in the underlying bill to exempt all permits associated with the construction of the proposed road from environmental review and public input. it's bad enough that the bill waives nepa for the land exchange but under this amendment any and all permit woubs exempt from review this could include a clean water act permit necessary to move forward with construction. this amendment makes the bill worse and i urge a no vote. i yield back the remainder of our time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from alaska. let's not wait again
for 40 years or nine or 10 years. this has already been done. the impact study has been den. the nepa process has been done, it's been done recently. this is not a cheap effort for a small community. i suggest respectfully this amendment should be adopted so we can build a road. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 115-235. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: i have an amendment made in order urn the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number printed in part c of house report 115-235, offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house
resolution 454, the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. acknowledging that i'm running the risk of being uppity on this particular amendment, but thankfully never smug, i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 218, the king cove land exchange act. my amendment simply requires the state of alaska to repay $20 million appropriated in 1999 to support the town of kick cove before the bill can take effect. the american taxpayer has already provided the town of king cove with a total of $37.5 million to improve transportation access and medical facilities in the area. that included $20 million to build a road, construct a dock and purchase marine equipment. part of this money was used to purchase a $9 million hovercraft. this federal funding was provided as an alternative to
building a road through the izembek wildlife refuge. the hovercraft worked as it was designed. it carried up to 49 passengers at a time, ambulance and even cargo making the trip between king cove and cold pay in 20 minute a trip that would take two hours on the proposed road when it's not shut down by extreme weather conditions. after operate -- after operating for three years and perform hreegs 30 medical evacuations, the local government quit using the hovercraft. the community is now trying to sell the hover vaft -- hovercraft on the open market for $5 million. republicans are seeking to cut programs like assistance to working families and medicare and medicaid. before we mandate this road, it's only fair american taxpayers are reimbursed for the federal funding intended to avoid the construction required by this legislation.
mr. speaker, i urge adoption of my amendment and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska -- mr. young: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized. mr. young: this would penalize a clinton -- penalize them for a clinton administration decision for the unreliable hovercraft. residents of king cove never wanted this system and only agreed to the compromise when it became clear the clinton administration would oppose any effort to construct this life 46 saving road. after years of working in good faith and making solutions work, king cove had to a abandon the system due to exorbitant cost and mechanical failure os then craft. it's expensive to run this amendment is an attempt to reparation but it targets the wrong group. the amendment puts the pricing to on the safety of king cove
resident who was sought reliable access to medical care for decades. congress does not require louisiana to pay the federal government for the failed levees in new orleans after hurricane katrina before building new ones and should not be charging the residents of king cove who are constructing this road. by the way, the amendment seeks repayment from the state of alaska who did not receive money, however the grant money is for temporary relief efforts were largely rewarded to the lo governments -- local governments. i think this is a punitive amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. let me remind, the point of the amendment is the money, the $37.5 million, and also the decision by the local residents to purr tcheas hovercraft that
was not mandated by the federal government was there decision -- was their decision, with federal money, $9 million. so that was all in lieu of construction of the road. this legislation mandates the construction of that road and i think it's only fair to the taxpayers that if the purpose was in lieu of, to deal with the medical evacuation situations that we've heard about here again today, then the american taxpayers should be reimbursed for that. this was not an error caused by, as the levees in new orleans, by faulty design and construction that bore responsibility to the federal government. these were local decisions made on the use of that money, now that that -- now that the use of that money is moot, the taxpayers redeserve -- deserve to be reimbursed. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: i reserve at this time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is
recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairmanism -- mr. chairman, i urge support of this amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: i yield to the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: as we close on this amendment let me say i would never consider this amendment uppity. i would consider it cute and a gotcha amendment. because the reality is, unlike what has been alluded to, the community did not want this hovercraft. they wanted what was promised them in the bill which was an 11 mile road to connect to the rest of the road. it was forced upon them by the clinton administration that said this is it. take it or leave it and they tried to make it work. with the tom line is, the system didn't work. what the clinton administration here, 6,000 miles away, forced on local residents who knew they would have a problem, did not work. and they quit doing it simply
because they could not afford to maintain that hovercraft. the hovercraft has not been -- is for sale but no one needs a hovercraft. and that's why this community now is stuck with the decision that we made, 6,000 miles away, because we know what is right for king cove, alaska. instead of allowing them to have some kind of control over their own lives. what mr. young said is accurate. when the levees broke along the mississippi, the missouri, we didn't go to those states to encyst on it. when there are wild fires in the west, including the gentleman from arizona's home state, we don't go back to arizona and force them to pay for all of it. this is simply an amendment that is cute and it's a gotcha amendment. but it's also wrong. and was also pointed out, the grants when to the community. the community is not being required thunder ealt to pay it back. it's the state which simply means the amendment is also
poorly written. if it ever was indeed supposed to be a sincere amendment. this is one of those things that we don't need to go through them options are very clear. we've gone through the process. vote against this particular amendment. i yield back whatever time is remaining. mr. young: vote yes on the bill and no on the amendment, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes visit. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grijalva: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be for what purpose does
the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i will move the committee rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 218 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution
thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 218 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2825, as amended, which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2825, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to make certain improvements in the laws administered by the secretary of homeland security, and for ther purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 386 and the nays are 41. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to house resolution 454 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 218. will the gentlewoman from wyoming, ms. cheney, kindly take the chair?
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 218 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for the exchange of federal land and non-federal land in the state of alaska for the struck of a road between king cove and cold bay. -- for the construction of a road between king cove and cold bay. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, a request for a recorded vote for amendment number 3 printed in house report 115-235 offered by mr. grijalva had een postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part c of house report 115-235
on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by ms. tsongas of massachusetts. amendment number 3 by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in rt c of house report 115-235 by the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 115-235 offered by ms. tsongas of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise nd be counted.
a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 115-235 offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. [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 has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings the committee of the whole house of the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 218 and pursuant to house resolution 454, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has had under consideration the bill h.r. 218 and pursuant to house resolution reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. is a separate demanded on the amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the clerk: exchange of federal
land and non-fd land for the construction of a road between king cove and cove bay. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. please take conversations out of the aisles off the back aisle. please clear the well. the house cannot proceed until onversations are silent. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk.
the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. garmeppedy of california moves to recommit the bill with instructions to report the same back to the house forth with. page 6 after line 24 insert the following, section 8, requirement regarding the use of american made materials and construction equipment, the road and road corridor shall be scrunthed using only materials and equipment manufactured in the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members are reminded to expedite this process. please remove conversations out of the aisle, off the back row. in the middle of the aisles, in the middle of the rows. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: my colleagues, i've got something very, very special for us in the next three minutes. this is an opportunity for us to
vote on something everybody in this chamber wants. that's right. everybody in this chamber wants american jobs and want american manufacturing to succeed and they want american -- how shall we put this? made in america. right? manufactured in america, right? yes, that's it. let me read to you this amendment which if accepted, would not stop this bill from passing, which i suspect it will, whether this is accepted or not. but here's your chance, colleagues. this amendment reads, the road and road corridor described in section 4-b shall be constructed and only, only materials equipment manufactured in the
united states. who's opposed to that? who's opposed to that? surely, my colleagues on the left and the right want to have american equipment used in manufacturing this road or any other road, any other pipeline, any other infrastructure project. this is what we all want, all of us. this amendment is about as simple as it could be and it's about as important as we would find on many of the amendments. i'm not going to do a gotcha thing today. all too often these m.t.r.'s are simply gotcha votes. i'm not going to do that today. but i want all of us to consider the art of the possible. consider for the moment, the art of the possible, that we could come together and we could amend this piece of legislation and
every piece of legislation that will be coming to us on infrastructure and roads and highways and water, and we could put into each and every one of those a very simple sentence that says they will be built with american equipment, american labor and american materials. that's it. i know my republican colleagues want it as much as my democratic colleagues, although you are shy and you're not willing to shout up in support. i'll tell you what i'll give you the opportunity to do. i'm aware of that clock as much as any of you are and here's my promise to my republican and democratic colleagues. give us a rounding yes so the very clear air ear of our speaker can hear a yes vote and let's go home.
with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: claim time in recognition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, appreciate the efforts of the the gentleman from california but would remind him when he was in the clinton administration and the clinton administration insisted this community -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, people are getting flights. let's go, i'm ready. when the clinton administration forced the commurent to get a hover craft, that was made in canada. i'm livid for the people of king cove, alaska, because they lack a lifesaving lane on the land to link this loan some locality
that has been while liberalsla metropolitan losing a little landscape. mr. speaker, the argument are limited and lack love for the residents who are there. this is a loser. vote know. let's get out of here. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection the previous question is ordered. question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the motion is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: without regard to the argument in opposition to my amendment, i think we ought to to go home and let it be. i'm not going to ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the wains. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 248, the nayses are 179. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the i believe. -- upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor from h.r. 620. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of making an announcement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized to speak out of order. >> thank you. as dean of the ohio delegation, i'm greatly saddened to inform the members that our former colleague, ralph regula, who was the dean of the ohio delegation, and i'm now the dean of the ohio republican delegation, has passed away. mr. chabot: he was 92 years of age. he had the honor of serving his constituents back home in ohio for 36 years. he was a key player on the appropriationses committee for -- appropriations committee for many years. he will be truly missed. i wanted to fin form the members
that congressman -- to inform the members that congressman gibbs will be organizing a special order next week. anyone who is interested on either side of the aisle in participating in that should contact representative gibbs' office. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for purposing of the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, madam leader -- madam speaker. i now yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. mccarthy. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30. on tuesday a, wednesday and -- tuesday, wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at
9:00 a.m. for -- tuesday, wedne business. mr. speaker, how it's will consider a number of suspensions next week. a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. one suspension worth highlighting is h.r. 3218, the forever g.i. bill. sponsored by representative phil roe. this bipartisan legislation will remove the 15-year gap for benefits that forces veterans to use it or lose it. while enabling vet to take of innovative new models like nanodegrees and online courses. education in the 21st century is the process of life long learning and i look forward to the house passing this important reform on behalf of the men and women who bravely serve our nation. in addition, the house will use the congressional review act to disapprove of the cfpb rule of arbitration agreements. this rule hurts consumers at the expense of class action trial lawyers and we will work with our colleagues in the senate to overturn this misguided regulation. the house will also consider h.r. 3219, the make america
secure appropriations act, sponsored by representative frelinghuysen. mr. speaker, this is a -- this is vital that we demonstrate our commitment to america's service members and uphold our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. the security package includes the committee's marked and reported bills for defense, energy and water, leg branch and military construction and veterans affairs. among many positives, the bill gives a 2.4% pay raise for our troops, increases funding for our capital police, ensures greater oversight and accountability at the v.a., and fully funds the president's request for a wall along our southern border. . members are advised that late-night votes are going to be taken. additional legislative items are possible in the house and i will be sure to notify members of any
additions to our schedule. and with that, i yield to my friend. mr. hoyer: i thank the majority leader for the information he's given us. sufficient ice it to say there are a couple of bills that give us great pause. but having said that, the appropriations committee over the last few weeks has marked up, i think all of its bills now, 12 bills. there was discussion about bringing an omnibus and obviously that's not happened, so we have what we refer to as a minibus. we only have 17 legislative days left until the end of the fiscal year, on september 30. first, i would like to ask the majority leader if he can tell us the process under which the minibus will be considered. as the gentleman pointed out, there are four distinct
appropriation bills that are included in the minibus. does the -- is this going to be an open rule. will all of these bills be open o amendment or will there be considered under a rule so that our members can prepare for the consideration of these appropriation bills? and i yield to my friend, the the majority leader. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his question. he is correct, all 12 appropriation bills will be done from committee, marked up in subcommittee and full committee and i thank the appropriations committee for their work. they achieved something that has never been achieved before. it is correct in the making america safe minibus package we are bringing, it covers over 66% of our total discretionary
spending. as the rules committee has noted, the bill will come under a rule, so it will be a structured rule. we assume that there will be hundreds of amendments. as the gentleman knows just like in the ndaa, more than 200 amendments and i would like it noted, there were more democrat amendments than republican amendments in the process that we worked through and that's why i expect there will be late votes next week as well. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman made an observation about there were more democratic amendments, that's unusual for your bills. we usually find more republican amendments to your bills than we do democratic amendments, but having said that, i think the gentleman's observation is correct. i do say that i want to make it clear to members of the house who have haven't served here
very long, the first year i was majority leader in 2007, it wasn't just consideration in committee, we passed through the house of representatives all 12 appropriation bills and sent them to the senate prior to the august break. so that the senate had a full month to consider them. we didn't get them all done, as you may have suspected, but in any event, i don't think i have ever seen, mr. leader, an omnibus passed prior to the august break, individual bills being passed, but a minibus of this nature, 66% of the discretionary spending, which by the way, there is no budget. and therefore, this breaks the sequester level. it breaks the agreements that we have had in the past under
ryan-murray for four years, two congresses. and the number that is being used is a number that was simply taken out of the air. there has been no vote on the floor and no other way to have set that number. that the believe amendments that are going to be offered are going to be offered in a very short space of time. and that is going to be a problem, but we'll see what the rule says. can the gentleman tell me, we expect to bring the other eight bills to the floor in september? and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and sometimes we have more republican ideas usually that come to the floor and i think ideas are good. i do intend to bring the rest of the appropriation bills to this floor and get them done and send
them to the senate. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman mentioned the border wall was going to be paid for. can the gentleman tell me what bill that will be included in? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman knows, the president campaigned across america to the american public about making sure our borders are secure. many members on both side of the aisle know the challenges we have along the border. the president requested and this fully fund the president's request and as i look back in history, along this line about the border security, there are many times in history it shows just a short history ago of those who have voted for it. hillary clinton has voted for border security, barack obama,
joe biden and chuck schumer. this amendment will be made in rules for the bill. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. it's an amendment made in rules. is that going to be an amendment that will be made in order for full consideration and debate on the floor of the house of representatives? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: as the gentleman knows, i do not speak for the rules committee. it will be their process and their determination. they will decide as a committee. mr. hoyer: i thank the majority leader for that answer. but given the fact as the gentleman has pointed out this was paid a major issue by the administration during the campaign. in light of the fact there are many members of his own administration who believe the wall will not work and is not the most effective way to do what all of us agree ought to be done and that is to keep our borders secure and make sure we know who is coming into the united states of america, i think that is a unanimous
position frankly of the members of this house. but this border wall as i understand it, is in none of the four bills that has been marked up by the committee. therefore, my presumption is, the rules committee is in some fashion going to add this. if they add it, frankly, to the rule and it is adopted as a result of the adoption of the rule, that will preclude a vote on the wall. now i know the gentleman doesn't like me to quote his book, but it seems to me and every issue was going to be taken on its own and members of the house will be able to work their will. f it's in the rule, that is, i think not consistent with that ability of members of the house to fully debate whether or not we ought to be putting billions
and billions and bill crons of dollars into a wall and whether or not that wall would be effected to accomplish that objective. can the gentleman assure it will not be assumed to be adopted by the adoption of the rule itself and will be an amendment in which the house can engage and work its will? and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: the gentleman brings up a point about the security of our border. there was a debate nationally, but it wasn't a new debate, but debate that happened on this floor short amount of time ago. we all remember, the secure fence act, actually debated right before i was elected. we vote veto-proof majorities in both house and senate. 64 democrats voted for that bill. 80 of 100 senators. and who were the senators who voted for this?
it was hillary clinton, at the time senator barack obama, senator joe biden and senator chuck schumer. so it is not a new challenge, but the gentleman will be thankful that we have taken the new technology and also applied it within this bill for border security. we have levees, we have dams as well, but we have taken the ideas on all sides. the american public has requested this. i can't promise what the rules committee will do, just as i never would ask you to promise what one of the committees were going to do. and i don't getup set if you are reading my book. and i get no royalties, the wounded veterans get the money and i'm thankful that you buy it. but if i may finish with this, the rules committee will act.
the american public expects us to act. we utilize technology and utilize levees and dams and many of those ideas come from your side of the aisle. it is requested not just from members on your side of the aisle, but democrats and city councils and others that are along the border. so yes, we are taking action just as we said we will do. the rules committee will find the right place to apply it and will have a discussion on the floor. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i understand the majority leader's ressonance not to answer the question. but this is an important issue and ought to be considered by the house and ought to have every member's ability to speak to the issue whether or not we ought to build that wall, not whether or not we ought to have security. we all agree we must have
security, but whether we do it with a wall, as i said, which many members of the current administration do not believe will work and there are member members on our side feel that. i would hope that the majority leader would at least make it known to the rules committee that we ought to have that as a free-standing amendment, not incorporated in a rule that the vote for the rule is -- or a vote depens the rule is in and itself is a vote on the wall itself. lastly, mr. leader, i want to say that you and i are both very concerned about the russian sanctions and iranian sanctions bill that is pending. we have been working very hard and very constructively on that and i look forward over the next 24 hours or more to see whether
or not we can get that resolved. we have introduced the senate bill as a house bill. we would be for that. if it would be brought to the floor. but we want to make sure that we move a bill as you do, as quickly as possible and get agreement with the senate and move that bill to the president's desk. i thank you for your work on that and look forward working with you over the next day or two to achieve that objective together. unless the gentleman wants further time, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on monday, july 24, 2017 when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: permission to address the house the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: madam speaker, last night, i was proud to present my legislative director n award. vermillo the former chief of staff to congressman diaz-balart. hese awards are given to staffers. none are more deserving than gabby. since started as an intern in my
miami office six years ago, gabby has risen through the ranks year after year serving our south florida community with wisdom, grace and integrity. now completing a masters degree at johns hopkins university, gabby is working on behalf of our constituents while constantly fighting for democracy and human rights in places like nicaragua. it is an honor to have gabby on my team and this is just the beginning of an extraordinary career. [speaking spanish] ms. ros-lehtinen: congratulations my friend. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? without objection. ms. jayapal: to quote ronald reagan, preservation of our
environment is not a liberal or a conservative challenge. it's common sense. yet this week my republican colleagues continued the trend of pushing through bills that deeply undermine critical environmental protections. h.r. 806, the smoggy skies act, is an attack on the clean air act that will lift protections against harmful pollutants that put the health of our communities at risk. republicans also made it clear that they're prioritizing dangerous pipelines while shirking environmental review processes. but despite their efforts, we're looking ahead and putting forward a bold vision for protecting our environment and our economic future. and i'm proud to introduce with congressman polis, grijalva and huffman, the 100 by 50 act, which aims to bring the united states to 100% renewable energy by 2050. climate change is the biggest threat to our planet, our economy, our children, and our communities. and our bill lays out a bold road map for ensuring that we
transition to a clean and renewable energy economy, while prioritizing good jobs for workers and investments in our communities. this is the time to be bold. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise to honor the habitat for humanity of bucks county, which is an organization dedicated to eliminating substandard housing locally and worldwide, through constructing, rehabilitating and preserving homes. this global nonprofit housing organization with a local chapter in my district operates on the principle that seek to put god's love into action. habitat for humanity of bucks county advocates for fair and just housing policies that provide training and access to resources, to help families
improve their living conditions. mr. fitzpatrick: the bucks county chapter of the habitat for humanity is a motivated team driven towards service, where they build communities and empower families. and i'm grateful for the work of executive director florence, laura, e.j., colleen, stephanie, candice, mike, susan, josh, teresa, sam, tracy, tara, and all of the associates and volunteerses who make this organization possible -- volunteers who make this organization possible. i'm proud to work with the bucks county habitat for humanity. driven by the convict that every man, woman and child should have a simple, durable place to live in dignity and safety. and that decent shelter and decent communities should be a matter of constants for all of us. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my
remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i represent the central coast of california. as many of my colleagues know, the salad bowl of the world. it's where agriculture is the number one industry. and it's where the farm labor movement was partially founded. as many republicans and democrats know, in agriculture undocumented farm workers do a majority of the labor and intensive work needed to put food on our dinner tables. that is why i am a co-sponsor of h.r. 2690, the agriculture worker program act, also known as a blue card bill. this bill would provide a majority of our farm workers with a path to legal permanent residence. it doesn't allow people to jump the line. it doesn't just give them benefits. in fact, there are certain obligations that they must undertake in order to receive those benefits. they have to work in agriculture for at least 100 days. and then they have to commit to working in agriculture for 100
days over the next five years. our farm workers who we employ and critically need are now living in the shadows for fear of deportation. this bill would provide legal protections for our farm workers to ensure a better future for their families, our farms and our communities. and while it is my hope that this bill would again be incorporated into a larger comprehensive package negotiated by republicans and democrats, just like it was in 2013 when congress nearly passed a comprehensive immigration reform, the people who helped feed our families deserve this opportunity and that'ses why i support it. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to show my support for the made in america week initiative. it's an initiative to highlight the contributions of american
workers and job creators. made in america brings to mind the combination of the american spirit of innovation and perseverance that is required to turn raw materials into manufactured goods. i am proud of the contributions of my home state of arkansas, that they make for the american economy. mr. westerman: in arkansas, 13% of the state's work force is employed in the manufacturing industry, which is the second highest percentage in the south and the third highest percentage in the nation. 28% of those jobs in arkansas are in the fourth district. in 2016, manufacturers contributed $2.2 trillion to the american economy. for every $1 spent in manufacturing, an additional d 1.80 is added to another part of the economy. with abundant resource, a strong infrastructure, and a second to none work ethic, arkansas is working to train the next generation of technicians and visionaries so that manufacturing can expand,
promoting better careers, stronger families and thriving communitieses. mr. speaker, i yield back. -- communities. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: weck. -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week torrential rains caused record flooding in many parts of illinois. and in particular my my district -- in my district. i had the chance to visit some of the affected areas over the weekend. joined by my colleagues from illinois, mr. hultgren and mr. roskam, as well as senator durbin, mayor schmidt and chair lawler. we spoke with residents and saw firsthand some of the many challenges these communities are facing. i rise today, however, to recognize the many unsung heros who have stepped up to help their neighbors and often helped total strangers in the wake of this disaster. mr. schneider: this includes our first responders, dedicated government workers, and volunteers. many coming from towns far away.
and unaffected by the floods. as the rains fell, then in the days after, these people worked tirelessly around the clock to lend a hand and try to hold off the rising waters. we're not out of the woods yet and people who serve our communities day in and day out in our local government, our police and fire departments, and our emergency agencies are continuing to work with professionalism and quick coordination. mr. speaker, i am pleased to use my time today to say thank you to these people working behind the scenes without due recognition. they represent the very best of our communities in our nation, and make us all very proud. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life and memory of a constituent and distinguished soldier in our nation's armed services. mr. newhouse: u.s. marine corps
sergeant dietrich shmeeman of washington passed away on july 10, along would 15 of his fellow service men. he served honorably as part of an elite marine raider battalion stationed at camp lejeune and was on his way to complete his predeployment training in yuma, arizona, before being deployed to the middle east. our nation owes a debt of gratitude to individuals like dietrich who, through his service, have preserved the freedoms that form the cornerstone of our nation. the sergeant and his death is a tragedy. and the hole he leaves in the lives of his friends and his family can never be filled. i join the nation in sending prayers to his family during this very difficult time. please join me in remembering sergeant shmeeman and his
dedication to the selfless service to our nation. again, our prayers are with his family and his loved ones. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> next week we'll see a consideration of the repeal of obamacare without a replacement. this could be a life or death issue for most americans. first we'd see skyrocketing uninsured rates. 1 million people would lose insurance next year -- 18 million people would lose insurance next. 32 million people would lose insurance by 2026. we'd also see skyrocketing premiums. 20% to 25% by next year. 50% by 2020. and 100% by 2026. mr. soto: 75% of americans would
live in a place where there'd be no marketplace insurer. we know that for every 455 people who gain coverage across the united states, according to the new england journal, that at least one life is saved. so if we lose 20 million people's coverage next year, we'd be looking at 43,000 to almost 44,000 avoidable deaths in the united states. that's why this is life and death. trumpcare has had its shot and it's failed. time for the parties to come together now. it's time to have a bipartisan bill to fix the a.c.a., the american people deserve nothing less. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition >> mr. speaker, to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, my colleagues, today i rise to honor the memory of officer mia. officer familia was a member of
the precinct in the bronx who lost her life in the early hours of july 5. she was targeted by a deranged ex-convict who assassinated her in cold blood. as new york city police commissioner james o'neill said at officer familia's funeral, quote, everything our government stands for, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear, everything starts with public safety. mr. faso: officer familia knew this and she wanted all of us to play our part. that was why violence against police and what we represent is a dishonor to civilized society. unquote. with a renewed dedication to law enforcement and the communities they serve, we pledge to keep officer familia's legacy alive. mr. speaker, i submit my full remarks and commissioner o'neill's remarks for the public record. thank you, mr. speaker. and may god bless officer familia's memory. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. dave cowens thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday i left an event and went straight to my cell phone and the first thing on it was a notice that john mccain had brain cancer. i literally stopped in my steps. and thought about john mccain and was saddened. senator john mccain is a true american hero who served our country in vietnam and has served our country in this house of representatives in the united states senate. when he ran for president, he had a bus called the straight talk. that wasn't just the name on the bus. he's a straight shooter. he's been a voice of reason and honesty, standing up and speaking truth to power during these last six months of this current presidency. and somebody who we need as a voice. it seems that arizona produces those voices. they produced it with barry gold the gentlemanwater and they produced it with -- barry
goldwater and they produced it with john mccain. he's a nice guy, too. the few opportunities i had to interchange with john mccain or go up to him and say something to him about an issue, always very easy going. very pleasant. a good human being. i urge you, if there's people in your life that you think well of, you care about, let them know it now. and keep john mccain in your prayers. hopefully he'll come back and continue to serve the united states as he has throughout his entire life. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i 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. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to highlight the success of my friends and neighbors in hall county and the hall county chapter of the georgia farm bureau. this past year the farm bureau in hall county lost hall growth, an educational initiative designed to help students expand their knowledge of agriculture. in my home state of georgia, agriculture is the largest industry. contributing 74 billion to the
state's g.d. . our young people represent the next generation of farmers and agriculture experts and consumers. it is our duty to ensure that these young student posssess an understanding of the strategic advantage that agriculture represents in the united states. the farm bureau is donating time, funding and resources so schools can cultivate guards, workshop for educators vand classroom activities outside to help the students. because of efforts like into, these, hall grove can continue to make an impact on the lives of students and the future of the industry. the farm bureau's willing tons support students is an attest to their generosity to the american farmer and i'm excited to see? this program make a positive difference. congratulations to the hall county farm bureau for their work and effort in hall grove with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? .
mr. gabbard: one year ago today, we lost a brother, a friend, a colleague, someone who made a great impact on my home state of hawaii and this country. my friend, congressman mark takai who lived his entire life with a full heart serving the people of hawaii and his country, always ready with a helping hand, creative new ideas and hearty laugh, mark was always someone on the move. i had the honor of serving with mark all the way back in the hawaii state legislature, through our time serving together in the hawaii national guard and again here in congress where we both served on the armed services committee. mark, time and time again, made his decisions based on how best he could serve the people of hawaii. and he took a lot of pictures along the way. mark led by example with respect
with aloha understanding building partnerships focusing on how he could get the job done. on this day commemorating mark, my heart is with his family, his wife and his kids, his parents, our entire national guard and the people of hawaii as we remember mark and honor his entire life and legacy of service. aloha. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. republicans have promised for years to repeal and replace obamacare. the best way to do this is simple, make congress live under it. the president can make this happen. obamacare included a provision dopping the congressional health
plans for members of congress and diverting members to the obamacare exchanges where they would have to pay their own premiums, yet an obama administration regulation gutted this provision and provided taxpayer subsidies for members, thereby creating an illegal exemption for congress under obamacare. mr. president, cancel this regulatory exception, make members live under obamacare as written. if you make them live under obamacare, my guess is they will vote to quickly repeal obamacare. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> last week i started freedom regulations.hlight congress overturned 14
regulations implemented in the waning days. the repeal of these rules could save the millions of hours of paperwork and $7.3 billion in costs to regulatory agencies. nice start, but we're not done yet. my main priority here in congress is to restore the constitutional parameters of the federal government and end overregulation. the first regulation i will be highlighting for freedom friday is restriction on our trucking industry. california and the ninth circuit have imposed more stringent standards for truckers than the motor carrier safety administration. there are some issues where congress has clear constitutional authority. this is one of them. we cannot allow them to be under burdensome regulations. our economic and national security depend on resisting this ominous trend. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any other member wish to address he house for one minute? under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes of the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: want to follow up on what my friend from florida was saying.
obamacare passed without a single republican vote, congress was expressly put under all of the conditions of obamacare. and it expressly took us out om the insurance that we liked, the insurance plans we ad and liked and 180 degrees contrary to what president obama said and so many of our friends across the aisle, even though we like our insurance and we wanted to keep it, turns out that was not true what they had been saying for so many months. we didn't get to keep our insurance. and some people -- i know emails keep circulating that members of congress have some special pie in the sky health insurance, but it is exactly the same insurance
options that every single -- was going to say from the president, down, but the president does have his own special health care, so i guess obamacare seems so appealing because it wouldn't affect the president and his family or else he might have looked at it differently. position as a 24 hour -- but every federal employee before obamacare had the same options we did. he major change in congressional health care came after -- since the provision was put in there, although every employer -- ee had
which means federal government, which means taxpayer assistance in paying the premiums for their health insurance, we had to pay rt, taxpayers paid part, but that was pretty common across the country. but in obamacare, for some and , speaker pelosi majority leader reid thought it was a good idea to stick it to members in congress that were not in leadership so that there would be no federal supplement or no federal employer was going to pay part of the cost of the health insurance for members of congress. that's in the bill. originally we thought that meant every single member of congress
would not get their employer part paid by the federal government, but it turns out speaker and certain of the leadership and leadership staff must have helped draft the bill, the way it was worded did not include the funds, so they would continue to get the federal portion paid by the government and taxpayers, as that is. but then speaker boehner, majority leader reid, president obama, they got together and me worked out a deal, let friend from florida pointed out, they made a deal to completely ignore what was in black and white print in obamacare and members of congress, other than the leadership, would not have
the federal government paying any part of theirs. all the rest of federal employees in the country, they would have federal government pay part of their insurance. only members of congress wouldn't, but they made a deal to specifically ignore what our democrat friends put in the law, black and white, expressing their -- and we have goten so many calls and so much information going all over east texas and i heard from people who lost their insurance, now could not afford their insurance, now were forced into a network that did not have the doctor that was saving their lives or the medication that was saving their lives, didn't have mayo clinic, didn't have the cancer facility that they had been using to keep their lives
going. i heard so many of those horror stories from constituents. i just could not -- i talked to the personnel here that are help us sign up for health care and i just could not bring myself to gn up for obamacare that was interpreted.ly it's not even an interpretation. we didn't get the federal subsidy and yet they agreed to do it despite what they put in the law and what they agreed to in the law. i went without insurance for a to have and pay extra insurance through my wife's employer. but ron desantis made a great point, if we went ahead and
enforced obamacare exactly the way it's written, yeah, the speaker, the leaders, they would be taken care of in the house and senate, but the rank and file members of the house and senate i think would much more quickly have come to the conclusion, we've got to have a change and we got to have it quick. but perhaps that's what president obama was thinking when he agreed to have the huge part of the the congressional health insurance, that gee, if he did that, they wouldn't be as quick to want to overturn it. but it is important, i think very important, as we hear friends across the aisle talk about how devastating it will be if we repeal obamacare, what
happens? what happens if we repealed obamacare, we would go back to the way it was before obamacare passed. and i didn't remember it being quite this high but one of our friends mentioned this week, i remember the polls were saying, 75% of americans were satisfied with their health insurance before obamacare was shoved down every american's throat. so if we repealed obamacare, what would happen is, we would go back to a health insurance or a health care situation where 75% of americans were satisfied. and what many of us were saying as we were in the minority on this side, we were begging our friends across the aisle, look, on't just throw out the entire
health care system the way it is, even though you got people in the health insurance business and the big pharmaceuticals helping you write obamacare, so they are going to make billions and billions more than they ever made. yes, it's true, a lot of health insurers have gone out of business, but the big ones that helped write obamacare, signed onto it, they made record profits. , so much for opposing crony capitalism. we see it at its best in obamacare. so americans should be a bit skeptical when they see some of the people who help write obamacare and made billions and billions, saying, oh, no, don't throw it out. just remember if we did that -- we just voted to end obamacare and have our system exist as if
obamacare had never passed, it would immediately put us into a situation where the vast majority of americans were satisfied with their health insurance, with the health care they got. but i have noted over the years one of the things that has helped with the acceptance by the minority that has accepted obamacare as being a good thing, has been that politicians here in washington have skewed the difference between health insurance and health care. . people were talking about, oh, gosh, people were dying on the sidewalks. actually, if you're on the sidewalk and you got a health as people ta i've seen in the emergency
roomses have done. why stand in line waiting behind them waiting to get care for one of my children. so it wasn't a matter of not getting that health care. those people did not have health insurance. but what good is obamacare insurance when your deductible is $7,000, $8,000, and you're paying $10,000, $1,000 a year for your insurance -- $12,000 a year for your insurance, and you don't enough to put aside in savings to even pay $1,000 to $2,000 of your deductible? well, yes, you have insurance. you have health insurance. but you sure don't have health care because now, because of obamacare, you cannot afford it. yes, i hear time to time people say, yeah, but the subsidy is working out so well. i'm able to have insurance.
what's your deductible? well, it's pretty high. but i'm satisfied with it. you know what we keep finding? they're satisfied with it because they've got cheap health insurance and it work out fine until they really need some -- they have something catastrophic happen. and they find out, they don't have the money to cover what they got to cover. we have got to do something. and i would submit that it wouldn't be so bad to go back to a system that a majority of americans said they were satisfied with. and then work from there. don't throw out the whole system again. and make it -- the federal government, big brother having its fingers in every aspect of our supposed care. but when the government has that
role, whether you want to call them death panels or not, there are bureaucrats who will make decisions to decide what they're going to allow you to have and be paid for. and that should never, ever be the role of the government. some say, if you go to single payer, which i despise that term because it masks just how evil the system is. the socialized medicine, which is -- it's socialized medicine, which is also another way of saying you have rationed care. because everybody's not going to get what they need and the government will decide who they think has a life valuable enough to get a new knee or to get a new hip or to have back surgery. or to have life-saving surgery. the government will decide that.
and that's the same reason i've heard from numerous seniors now, before obamacare passed they had medicare as supplemental coverage. but even so, after obamacare passed, which cut $716 billion could not care, they get the surgeries timely that he had had needed before obamacare. and -- that they had needed before obamacare. that will continue, if we don't repeal obamacare, it will continue to wear those wait times that many seniors are now experiencing, whereas it used to be, well, all right, when do you want to do this? tomorrow, next week, when do you want to do it? now it's, i know you need it now but it's going to be two or three months before we can work you in. it's rationed care. that's what obamacare causes.
so there's going to be more and more of that. unless we get obamacare repealed. i just don't think that's an option. a majority of americans want -- did not want obamacare. and after its passed still didn't want obamacare. they gave us the majority in the house and now in the senate. and now the presidency. on a promise that we would get id of obamacare. so, we start from the premise that health care will be better and more affordable once obamacare is repealed. there do need to be reformed -- reforms. but you have to start from the premise to get rid of this system that is skewing and basically destroying the greatest health care system ever produced in the history of the world. medical historians who i've
noted before have indicated it was probably some point in the early 1900's, it can be debated when that point may have occurred, some say around the rotocols in the early 1900's', around world war i. whenever it was, around 100 years ago, for the first time in human history someone who needed health care had a better chance of getting better if they didn't go see a doctor. before that point in the early 1900's'. after that point, you started having a better and better chance of getting well if you went to see a doctor. so you look at that time, whether it's 100 years, 120 years. to think that just in the thousands of years of recorded history, in our lifetimes you
have not only had a chance of getting well after seeing a doctor, you have a great chance of being cured. all the diseases and conditions that we found cures for. we have so many yet to go. and there will always be something else that needs to be researched and cured. because that is the state of his world. but, we had a system here in america that produced more life-saving medicationses and treatments and surgeries -- medications and treatments and surgeries. more life-saving and life-enhancing procedures of all kinds. because, for one thing, we had competition, we had a free market system. our founders so wisely put in the constitution, a provision
for rewarding people because of original thoughts or inventions. copyright and patent. congress has done a lot of damage to that system. in recent years. an t still provides incentive to create something that's life saving or life enhancing. we simply cannot build a health care system that helps people built on the foundation of obamacare. more and more, until it's complete socialized medicine, it will be, if we leave obamacare in place, there will be more and more rationed care, which means less and less care for individuals. so for six years, republicans have been united in our support for fully repealing obamacare.
congress has voted, at least the house has voted more than 60 times to repeal obamacare. so it's not the time to get timid. now's the time to support the president's efforts to get rid of obamacare. and if what we have to do is bring forth the bill that we passed in the last congress, and put on the desk -- it on the desk of president obama to get id of the thing that has -- at least informally has his name that he said he's proud of, people are getting hurt. people can't afford what they've got. more and more losing insurance, losing more and more insurance companies. and i still continue to be quite concerned, just saying there's a great panacea in buying insurance across state lines because unless we end the monopoly from the
laws, the anti-trust laws, then we could very easily end up with only one or two insurance companies in the whole country, instead of having only one in 30 or 40 states. far better is to just end the exemption from anti-trust laws, end the ability for a health insurance company to monopolize nd have mo knopp -- monopoly tactics that keep entrepreneurs from developing new insurance companies, different ways of paying for health care. we have to end that. so that people that have come up with new ways, better ways to provide health care, they end up doing well because of their great idea to provide more affordable health care. one thing in my mind that is
absolutely certain, we can just get, we can just get rid of obamacare, then one of the steps we have got to take is to get back to a system that we had 50 years ago or so when i was growing up in mount pleasant there in east texas. and you knew what thing cost. i mean, all the different times i had to be taken in for stitches because i got involved in activities that was going to get somebody hurt, and i was often the one. so all those times i went in for stitches, my parents always knew what it's going to cost. when the doctor put stitches in my head or above or below my eye, all the different places i got them. they knew. of course on one occasion, he can't get in trouble now, he's gone, but a dear friend of the family, that was the family
physician at the time, let my mother, since she was such a good seem stress, put in a couple of my -- maybe three of my five stitches. mother said, that's just basic sewing. i could do that. he said, you sure could, i've seen you so he. you sure krk that's all -- sew. you sure can, that's all it is. i don't encourage that kind of thing. but mother did a nice job. he closed it up. but she knew she was still going pay the fee, even though she put a couple of stitches in. she knew she was going to pate fee. -- pay the fee. anyway, he was shorthanded on nurses that day and mother was the nurse because it was a weekend. he came in special. but anyway. you don't see people anymore like they did when i was young who say, i'm going to a different doctor because the other doctor raised his prices and this one's just as good.
you don't see that. nobody knows what the doctors are actually getting paid. and when i've asked for answers from wonderful health care providers that are really trying to take care of people, how much is this, how much is that? well, louie, i can't really tell you. it depends. is it medicare, medicaid, cash? is it blue cross, is it anthem? is it an h.m.o.? you got to tell me. and what's the diagnosis? because sometimes different charges depending on what the disease is. why is that? because the government puts different payment schemes on these things. we have to get rid of a system where nobody knows what anything costs. you can't have competition and spur health care on and health care providers to the very best they could possibly do, to innovate new ways and better ways to treat people, and to provide health care, if we don't have actual competition and
people know what they're paying for. that's one of the things we have to get back to. and know there's some physicians that have said, well, my contract with that insurance company doesn't have that provision. but i've heard that some do. some have told me, yep, my contract as a doctor with that insurance company said i specifically cannot let somebody who is paying cash pay as low an amount as i'm taking as full payment from this insurance company. well, that shouldn't be the case. but as long as an insurance company can monopolize, violate anti-trust laws, then they'll be able to do that kind of thing, to keep people from being able to pay cash as readily as they could if they were one of the major insurance companies. we have to get out of that. how do you get out of that? well, first thing, you never -- first thing you never, ever do as long as obamacare continues to be the law of the land.
i'm so proud we have a president that continues to push the idea of getting rid of obamacare so better can have a system, providing health care. and i do use the word health .are and not health insurance and it botherses the heck out of me that c.b.o. -- bothers the heck out of me that c.b.o. makes this grandiose claim of how many people will lose their insurance , because they're too ignorant under the models they create to distinguish the difference between somebody who chooses not to buy a policy that costs them a fortune, has a huge deductible, and is going to not help them when they need it, and someone who says, gee, i want to
keep this insurance, but i can't afford it. c.b.o. has made themselves, put themselves into such a blind position they can't tell the difference. they say, well, if somebody says, i'm not paying for this insurance policy, deductible is too high, the premiums are too high, i'm going to put my money in a savings account and i will ve in three years $40,000 to cover health care problems if i have some in the future and that will keep growing, well, c.b.o. will say that poor person that now has a huge growing health savings account is a poor -- like a poor homeless individual and the government yanked away their insurance. no, they just chose to quit rewarding a health insurance company for not providing them the insurance that they need. there's a difference between losing insurance and just
refusing to buy insurance that is worthless. and i'm hoping that we're moving closer to the day when e can get rid of this democrat congress contrived group called the congressional budget ffice, c.b.o., that i have been convinced for a number of years we will never be able to get this country on sound footing with a driving economy, all boats being lifted, getting the country out of debt as long as c.b.o. is the official scorer for the bills in this building. seems clear to me -- and yes, i understand. they've come to my office a couple of times. i understand it. i get it. you create models and then you
feed this information in that you think is important to the hardly u created that historical actual rformance, and then you just dutifully report you say what the cost is and what's going to happen as a result. try living with history and using absolute historical evidence of what happens instead of creating some goofy model that, as best as it appears now, when they -- well, first, i think $1.2 trillion they estimated obamacare. then after president obama wood sheded elmendorf, the director, and i know you doesn't like that term -- he met with him.
elmendorf comes out, redoes his numbers. h, it was under $1 trillion. $800 billion, just like obama says. well, after it passes it was probably more like $1.7 trillion, $1.9 trillion, and now it's not $800 billion, it's $1.2 trillion. it's at least 20 -- at least $2 trillion and maybe $4 trillion, maybe $4.5 trillion. it's just through the roof. so i don't think it's unrealistic to say that c.b.o.'s margin of error on obamacare wasn't plus or minus or 3%, it was plus or minus 200% or 400%. and no entity that cannot have a better margin of error than 200% has any business scoring anything considered official in
this building. d i know dr. arthur laffer got a private grant to figure out a way to have competitive scoring of bills in the house and senate so that these scorers could have a score on their accuracy, their success rate for accurate scoring of bills. so as you go along, this republican idea of competition being a good thing, you have competitive scoring instead of one official group that will never allow this country to get on a proper footing because it was set up in 1974 as nixon was going out and the democrats were having a hay day and they got a little giddy and left two million people in southeast asia to die instead of having an orderly transition.
and at home we're wreaking havoc with the way we pass laws n this building. i will continue to urge the president of the united states as we take up a tax reform bill t to give in to the pressure from people in congress toward the top to go more to a 20% or 21% corporate tax because the corporate tax really is about the most insidious, one of the most insidious taxes because it's based on a lie. we tell the american people, oh, you don't have to worry. we're going to sock it to these evil corporations and make them pay all this big tax when the fact is corporations don't exist, don't continue to exist if they don't have the customers pay that corporate
tax. that charge is ultimately paid by americans across the country. it's another way of sticking it to the little guy when you have a high corporate tax, and i'm fully aware there are people in this country that think it's a great thing that they think we're evolving from a manufacturing country to more of a service economy where we just provide services and don't get engaged in this low-life manufacturing. well, guess what, that low-life manufacturing is how a country survives for centuries. any nation that is considered to have power in the world loses that power after the next war if they cannot produce the things that they need to defend
themselves from hateful evil leaders in the world. some people didn't seem to mind when we were losing the tire manufacturing, steel manufacturing, steel product manufacturing, losing all that to china. they didn't seem to care. oh, louie, don't worry about it. we're a service economy. well, as a historian, i'm telling you, if we don't get back to manufacturing the things that we have to have to defend ourselves successfully against evil tyrants, whether , iran, north korea totalitarian in russia, wherever, if we don't manufacture what we need to defend ourselves and our eedoms, we won't have them past the next war. don't believe me -- you know, jesus will say there will always be wars and rumors of
wars. hey're going to exist. reagan was right. you know, the best way to a war -- avoid a war is to have so much strength that people will not attack you. they don't want to challenge you because they know you can take them out. unfortunately, we've had the ability to take out evil empires and evil tyrant leaders for a long time, but just as occurred when i was in the united states army, active duty for four years, was at fort benning and our embassy was attacked in tehran, hostages were taken, we had a president -- well, he had hailed the ayatollah khomeini as a man of peace when he took power so it was kind of tough for him to attack him, but the iranians,
they said the students did it very came very clear soon, they were saying we had the hostages. it was a government-orchestrated attack. they could have and should have protected our embassy and carter should have made it clear, you either get our people out unharmed or we are bringing the full power of the united states military to iran and it wouldn't be a bluff. i think they would have let them go. that's why they spent at least three days talking about the students having them. that was a way out. if carter had said we're coming if you don't get those folks out, i think they would have let them go. but you can't bluff in a situation like that. but we got -- should have made it clear that we're not tolerating attacks on united states land, and that's what an embassy is, and because we didn't defend ourselves there, the story started. well, they ran from vietnam.
you know, didn't do anything. paper tiger. one after another we got hit and didn't properly respond, and i understand president reagan acknowledged that he let e congress intimidate him to pulling our forces out of beirut after 300 marines or so precious lives were lost to a terrorist attack. so the story built and continued. the united states paper tiger, they won't defend themselves, and it became attractive to be attacked. o we need a 15% corporate tax. meeting with different c.e.o.'s in years' past over in china, why did you leave america? i thought they'd say because of all the regulations.
yes, those were problems, and sometimes unions are too -- demand too much and we can't stay in business so we move, but, no, the number one answer over and over again is, you know, we got a deal cut. now we are at an effective rate between 15%, 20% corporate tax, and in america, you know, they say cumulatively corporations probably paying around 40% for corporate tax. it's time to undercut the tax that china pays, bring back our steel industry, let's get back so ving detroit, akron, any of the great american -- midwestern states had model cities and people were working and there weren't the big slums because things were going great. that day can come back, but it
will not come back to the extent it could with a 20% or 21% corporate tax, but oh, my goodness, we cut our corporate tax to 15%, this united states economy will explode. this less than 2% that we had growth under president obama, lowest for any eight years in our history, that would end overnight. if i might ask how much time i have. the speaker pro tempore: 23 minutes. mr. gohmert: so thank you, mr. speaker. i want to direct attention to this ongoing narrative about collusion with russia. we still desperately need an independent council to vestigate the mueller,
clinton, lynch relationship. it appears that mueller is on a -- and it appears he will james comey, they were buddies. they colluded together so much. comey trying to get an independent council appointed. he was able by leaking illegally pulling these shenanigans. he consulted with muler even on his -- mueller even on his testimony and mueller is the guy that's supposed to judge his testimony and unt current federal regulations, mueller should have recused himself. we have somebody to investigate mueller. it's getting out of hand and needs to be soon. but in the meantime, the new developments seem to make clear to some of us that donald trump jr. -- seemed like a nice guy
-- but he appears to have been the target of a democratic the to try to take down trump campaign. they point to this meeting between donald trump and -- a moscow attorney. some of this is in an article written by scott mckay, july 14, "american spectator," that's a moscow attorney and she was trying to meet with donald trump jr., and when they actually had the meeting, she didn't have anything to give him. it appeared the purpose -- oh, yeah, she brought up about the bill that was passed that helped some extremely wealthy russians who were buddies with putin, but as this article
, the evidence of collusion between trump and -- junior, that is -- and the russians seem to be based on a time line which included the wikileaks disclose ured of hacked democratic national committee emails and trump saying they make public the emails that clinton deleted from her illegal private server, but it's a smoking gun trump was the beneficiary of this putin regime intelligence arm hacking the 2016 elections so our friends across the aisle seem to say. but that doesn't make sense. he got nothing out of the meeting. and probably at some point
everybody in this room had to run for election -- everybody in this room had to run for election. and if they had an opponent, if somebody said, hey, you need to know this about your opponent, you know, at some time or another, nerve this room has listened to something and -- everybody in this room has listen to something. many times the garbage. you say, i don't want to have anything to do with that. essentially that's what donald trump jr. did after he got lured into a meeting. but when you go, wait a minute, what was this moscow attorney even doing in this country? this article points out that her presence in the united states alone ought to be the source of suspicion. that not only is the trump-russia collusion narrative suspect, but the real inquiry ought to be whether the encounter was a small part of a larger attempt to trap the trump campaign.
the russian lawyer wasn't even supposed to be in the united states. she had been denied a visa for entry in the united states in late 2015. but given a rather extraordinary parole by the obama administration to assist preparation for a client subject to an asset forfeiture by the justice department. she could not be in the united states unless someone that answered directly to the president of the united states said, we're going to let her in. she's working on something special, so we're going let her in. even though we knew previously she's not somebody we should let in, she's doing something special right now, we want her in. and the story is that loretta lynch had to approve her coming n.
so, the client that this russian attorney was allowed to come in to help was suspected of having paid some portion of $230 million stolen by russian mobsters. hen a russian lawyer represented company that had been a victim of the threat reported it to authorities in moscow, he was promptly jailed and beaten to death. by the russians. the american response to this atrocity was the 2012 act which sanctioned several individuals connected to human rights abuses. the russian government retaliated by preventing american adoptions of russian children. who did that hurt? the russian children. but putin didn't care. why would he care? he's making billions. he's got people like this
russian lawyer that loretta lynch let in. then we find out in june, the russian lawyer was permitted to fly back to the u.s. to have the meeting with trump jr. at trump tower, no lells. and then end up in the front row for a congressional hearing. she was sitting right there behind the obama ambassador. in my experience, all the hearings i've seen, when you have somebody from the administration of the caliber of an ambassador, very careful to make sure people behind him are those that can hand a note to help him answer a question. that's what is normal. there she is. right behind obama's ambassador to russia. and then she turns up at a d.c.
showing of a documentary film on the negative effects of the act and later appeared at a dinner involving another couple of representatives. she's now a lobbyist for the russians overtly. maybe she was then. the repeal of that legislation's a priority item for the russians d a personal objective for that russian attorney. so rather than any clinton dirt, as was reportedly the primary subject brought forth at the meeting with donald trump, it appears she was here with the approval of loretta lynch, with the approval of the obama department of homeland security. they knew what she was about.
just like they knew what the member of a terrorist organization was about when they approved him coming to the white house and janet napolitano lied at our hearing, saying that wasn't happening. so she did all of this without a visa. she did not file a foreign agent's registration document. which is required. and the obama administration gave her a pass on those things. sure, let her in. she's doing important work. we're not giving her a visa. we're just letting her in. not going to pick her up because she's doing important work. really? she's setting donald trump jr. up. and the obama administration considered that important enough to let this person that they previously realized should not be allowed in the country to come in, to do that kind of important work? set up donald trump? well, anyway.
turns out this lawyer was connected to fusion g.p.s. that's the democrat opposition research firm, which employed a former british spy who used russian contacts to produce the urenarys and now debunked dossier smearing trump. she hired fusion g.p.s. head simpson to work on behalf of the company she was allowed into the country to represent. fusion then hired christopher steele, the british spy who drew on russian sources to produce his dossier. and then they made him available for private briefings on the dossier with left-leaning media sources such as mother jones, "the new york times," "the washington post," yahoo!, "the
new yorker," cnn. d by the way, there is the lawyer's social media account, which is decidedly more aligned with the fusion g.p.s. side of the equation than with trump. she was no friend of the trumps. every indication was she wanted the trumps taken down. trump jr. met with her, it appear to be a setup. -- appears to be a setup. patriot guest hosting tonight the other night. some people say, why do you do this media? one of my jobs is to not only be aware of what's going on here, try to vote properly, argue the right way on different bills, but it's also to make sure that people in america know what's going on. a guy called in and, very
interesting, but he seemed to have a pretty good grip on all of this. it's just amazing how many american citizens across the country -- they're not confused by the smoke screen that we get from the mainstream media. so if timelines are interesting to you. there is this. reportedly the obama administration sought permission to electronically monitor trump tower in early june, and the fisa court refused to grant it. but in october, they allowed it. isn't that something? once they set up donald trump jr. with this friend of the obama administration, this russian attorney who was using the democrats' own opposition research firm, she was working helping them, they then
convinced a judge, go ahead and let us monitor everything going on in trump tower, when the judge initially refused to do that. so if you like -- the article said, if you'd like to don your tinfoil cat and play the collusion game. try this on for size. when the obama administration couldn't get permission from the fisa court to surveil trump, they allowed the lawyer back in the country to take part in that washington activity, meeting up with donald trump, and at the meantime she used the administration's pals at fusion hook with attempting to a basis for them getting a warrant. there was nothing to that meeting and yet they used it, got a warrant to further monitor
everything going on in the trump tower. in october. it just keeps pointing back to the fact, we have got to get an independent counsel who will investigate mueller and his ties to comey and lynch and the clintons. and get to the bottom of this mess. yeah, i want an investigation cause this is looking pretty lurid right now. just in the time left, i do need to mention this continuing push by friends across the aisle and the obama holdovers in our executive branch, they think net neutrality is something we got to have. there's a great article, july 19 . she points out regarding net
neutrality, the debate over net eutrality can easily turn into jarg than no one understands but here's the base you can gist. the internet is made up of bits. proponents of net neutrality want to make sure these .bits are treated equally. meaning all web content appears on your computer at the same speed, with the same quality. that sounds like a good thing, right? supporters say that net neutrality would make all content equal by ensuring the internet providers cannot buy faster or higher quality content. the free market, they say, is inherently unfair and only a third party, the government, can determine how content should be treated. but that sounds exactly like textbook new deal progressivism. it's not a question of whether or not internet content should be equally available, rather
it's much older question of who should determine that content is equally available? consumers or the government? even the background of net neutrality is straight out of the new deal playbook. like many administrative programs, the fight fournette neutrality began -- fight for net neutrality began when similar provisions failed in congress. after legislative failures, what's a good progressive to do? progressive, that term bothers me, kind of like single payer. single payer means socialized medicine. government-run and rationed health care. what does progressive mean? well, it actually is a throwback . it's socialism. some socialists or even hard core communists, not all are, but they want the government -- i mean, the just an orwellian government where they watch and know everything going on and they know better than americans
do, let the government decide your future. but the bush f.c.c. adopted principles for, quote, preserving internet freedom in 2005. but did not go through a formal rulemaking process. 2018, the f.c.c. went africom cast for going against these principles, only to get struck down by the d.c. circuit where bad administrative law goes to die. in 2010 the f.c.c. adopted and open internet order. verizon wireless sued the commission, again. commission lost at the d.c. circuit. by now there must be legally wrong with the f.c.c.'s net neutrality regulation. and that's exactly right. under the u.s. constitution, only congress can give a specific power to an executive agency like the f.c.c. and usually through statute.
but here's the kicker. the f.c.c. claimed congress gave them power to regulate the internet through the communications act of 1934. the observant reader will notice this law was passed a long time before the internet existed. the act did give the f.c.c. power to regulate common carriers like radio, wire communication, telephone companies, but not the internet. not only does net neutrality follow the new deal's progressive, socialist formula, it literally derives its power from the new deal-era law. right before the 2016 presidential election, the obama f.c.c. created a third set of net neutrality rules. bottom line, if there is net neutrality, the government will decide what you get to see and hear on your internet. i've had family living in china.
i know what it is to be censored, have the government deciding you can't learn anything negative about the government. we cannot allow this pleasant sounding net neutrality to become a reality because though it goes along perfectly with obamacare, with the government controlling our health care, why shouldn't they control what we get to see and hear in the internet? and the bottom line is, this is the united states of america and it was created to control government, not to let the government control our free choices. ith that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i do, indeed. i move we hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to