tv U.S. House of Representatives 10042017 CSPAN October 4, 2017 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
$1.1 trillion proposal. four hours of general debate still ahead and also alternative proposals as well with final passage expected sometime thursday. live coverage now of the u.s. house on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, imam abdullah antepli. duke university. durham, north carolina. the chaplain: peace be upon you all. please join me in prayer. the holy one, as your creation, we call you by different neams, experience you through multiple paths -- name, experience you through multiple paths. our human diversity is from you. as the creator of all, you made us different. enable us to understand, appreciate and celebrate our differences. teach and guide us to turn these
differences into opportunities, richness and strength. prevent us from turning them into sources of division, polarization, hate and bigotry. the most merciful one, this incredible diverse nation of ours is one of the most successful attempts to understand your wisdom in creating us different. we are far from being perfect, but came a long way in creating a multicultural, multireligious and pluralistic society by making in america, you will be judged by what you do, not by who you are, as one of our foundational promise. the most compassionate one, help us to preserve our achievements in this regard. do not let the destructive forces of division and exclusion erode our ideals. our firm commitment to diversity and pluralism.
empower us and these legislators to further improve the culture of inclusion and welcome to all in our nation and beyond. the most forgiving one, even if and when we forget you, please do not forget us. in your most holy and beautiful names we pray. 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 new york, mr. katko. mr. katko: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, is recognized for one minute. thank you, mr.
speaker. i rise to introduce today's guest chaplain, my friend, imam abdullah antepli. imam antepli has been a prie pioneer and muslim campus ministry serving since 2003 at wesleyan university, hartford seminary. he was founder of the muslim chaplain. during his chaplaincy, he provided an islamic perspective to discussions of faith, spirituality, social justice, peace and cultural change. he effectively built bridges and promoted understanding across religious and cultural divides. that was his mission and it continues to be his mission to this day. imam antepli leadership roles
include chief representative of muslim affairs at the college of arts and sciences and senior fellow in the office of civic engagement. he's also served as associate director of duke islamic studies center. imam antepli also serves as senior fellow of the jewish-muslim relations it the is a loam heartland institute -- shaloam heartland institute. he brought a religious perspective to religious issues, he traveled around the world as an influential ambassador, informal ambassador to engage in religious diplomacy. i'm honored to welcome imam antepli back to the house of representatives. he's a prophetic voice for peace and justice. he's an engaging teacher and counselor. he's a gifted interpreter of his faith. and he's an effective promoter, not merely of interfaith tolerance but of positive
engagement. i'm happy to count him as a friend and with my colleagues to express appreciation for his words of inspiration today. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i often hear at home from folks who are frustrated with their experience of air travel, with airport security. we have an opportunity to address part of the problem to reduce flight times, to prevent involuntary bumping, to save fuel, reduce emissions, to reduce the amount of government employees and to save money both in the public sector and out of our constituents' pockets. mr. graves: the f.a.a. is spending billions of dollars attempting to implement new technologies and next generation air traffic control
management systems. in their failing. right now we have the 21st century airr act. that act is the step in the right direction. it will unleash american innovation and allow us n to catch up with other countries but to surpass them. it's about american jobs. it's about providi the flying public with the serce they deserve. i urge you to support to advance the 21st century airr act. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the entleman from new york rise? without objection,he gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, treasury secretary mnuchin and the president said that their plan would not benefit the rich and would gr the economy. they called it the mnuchin rule. if you make $730,000 a year in america, your income would rise y 8.5% or $129,000 a year or $10,750 a month.
this is your tax cut under the trump plan, a direct violation of what we were told. we were also told that this plan was a middle-class miracle. if you make $67,000, your ncome will rise by 1.2% or $670 a year or a whooping $56 a month. this is not a miracle. this is an illusion. this plan will increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. we were all wondering where all the deficit hawks are or where any of the deficit hawks are. we were told that these tax cuts would pay for themselves. news flash. tax cuts don't pay for themselves. in fact, economists from goldman say these tax cuts will have virtually no good impact on the economy. the treasury secretary and the national economic advisor are both immediately from goldman. this tax cut is a fraud being perpetrated against the american people and against the
american middle class. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cat roe -- mr. katko: today most actions are in partisan lens. the 21st century airr act represents a wide array of political ideologies. modernizing air traffic control has historically been a bipartisan issue. 20 years ago, then-president clinton said, quote, the f.a.a.'s 20-year effort to modernize its air traffic control technology simply has not been able to keep pace for either the emergence of new technology or the growth and demand for air travel. we can continue on the current course and continue to experience crowded airports, flight delays and even higher passenger frustration, but if we act decisively now to improve our infrastructure, we can ensure that our air travel
and the 21st century is the safest, most cost-effective, most efficient in the world, end quote. these words are still true today because we have failed to act decisively. the f.a.a. is struggling to give americans the 21st century air traffic control system they deserve. we have the opportunity to change that with the airr act. many form top administration officials from both parties support reform as well as broad coalition of stakeholders. air traffic control reform hasn't been a partisan issue, and it shouldn't become one now. i urge all my colleagues to pass the critical bill for american aviation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. green: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize eastwood academy and lions elementary school in houston, texas, as national blue ribbon schools for 2017. the u.s. department of education's selections blue
ribbon schools each year from across the country based on their overall academic excellence and progress in closing the achievement gap. lions element and eastwood academy are two of just 342 schools selected nationwide this year. lions elementary and eastwood academy were selected exemplary high-performing schools based on state and national assessments. while serving historically disadvantaged communities, north houston and eastwood. i thank the parents, teachers, administrators of eastwood academy and lions elementary for their hard work and commitment to bring a brighter future for our children and our community. finally, i want to thank the students for their diligence and academic excellence and wish them beth in their future endeavors -- best in their future endeavors and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to
honor the life of nolan watson, a georgia resident and veteran of the united states air force who joined our heavenly father earlier this year after battling kidney cancer for over a decade. in 1966 mr. watson was one of the heroic men during the cold war who was involved in the cleanup efforts after a b-52 bomber collided with the kc-135 tanker in spain releasing four hydrogen bombs. after his service, mr. watson suffered from severe medical problems and was ultimately diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2002. nolan is survived by his lovely wife, who has been a fierce and devoted advocate for her husband working tirelessly throughout the years to garner the recognition these young men deserve for the sacrifices they made responding to this unfortunate disaster. mr. hice: mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to stand with me and join me for a moment of silence to honor the life and legacy of
nolan watson, a hero, who sdembs our respect and who will be sorely -- deserves our respect and who will be sorely issed. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: mr. speaker, i rise today to spotlight the statement of lieutenant jay silvera made after an incident involving racial slurs. his speech made three clear points. first, the appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas are a better idea. second, we currently have the
opportunity to think about our defining values as americans and to stand firm on our values. and lastly, if you cannot treat someone with dignity and respect, then you need to get out. lieutenant general silvera is a role model. i stand here today to share these words because we in washington need to hear and heed them. we must think about who we are as a nation, and we must stand firm in our values. after all, we are americans. our values have always defined us. so we simply cannot accept the words and actions of those who do not treat others with dignity and respect. and we must respond to horrible language and hateful ideas with better ideas and a strong resolve to rise above hate. this is how we become a better and a stronger nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one
minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support designating the first friday in october as manufacturing day. mr. marshall: manufacturing provides over 12 million jobs and contributes $2 trillion to our economy. in kansas, manufacturing accounts for nearly 1/5 of the state's economy and directly employs over 160,000 people. the industry has a long and successful history in kansas and this friday i plan to help a small manufacturing company, superior boiler works, in uh tchison, kansas, of 100 years of being in business. these small businesses have a substantial impact on local communities by providing good-paying jobs like places like atwood, kansas. i ask my colleagues to support designating the first friday in october as national manufacturing day. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. years ago children were killed at sandy hook. we failed to act. last year in a hate crime against the lgbtq community, 49 people were killed in the pulse night club terrorist attack and congress did nothing. this week at least 59 people have been killed and over 500 injured in the worst mass shooting in modern american history. will congress yet again lack the courage to act? mr. quigley: will we prioritize thoughts and prayers at the expense of substantive action that saves lives? will we hide behind it's too early to talk about gun violence
excuse? if so, when is the right time? a week from now, a month, a year? or perhaps after the next mass shooting. for over the 1,500 mass shooting victims since sandy hook, the right time to talk about gun violence has tragically come and gone. but we can and must turn the pages today. let us not continue dishonoring their memories because of political pressure and fear to do what is right. thank you. 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? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker. this friday we celebrate national manufacturing day. the economist peter navarro recently said that manufacturing is the seed for all other jobs in the united states. i couldn't agree more. manufacturers are the pioneers, the innovators, and the people who bring ideas to life. with over 20% of florida's
manufacturers located in the tampa bay area, i'm proud of the fact that there are more than 2,500 manufacturers in and around my district. their work couldn't be more essential to our community. and our country. it is our job to support manufacturing and to create a business environment which they can thrive. this means passing meaningful tax reform, eliminating regulations that stifle the industry, and encouraging stem education, which is needed for work force development. i look forward to continuing to work on these important issues as we embrace the full potential what have it means to be -- to make it in america. made in america. thank you very much. i appreciate it and 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 michigan seek recognition? mr. kildee: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
mr. kildee: mr. speaker, middle class families should be the focus of tax relief. not billionaires. not the wealthiest americans. unfortunately the ryan-mcconnell tax plan fails that basic test. independent analysis shows that the republican plan would actually raise taxes on many middle class families. ,iving billionaires, the top 1% the biggest breaks. the nonpartisan tax policy center says that middle class families could actually pay an increase of d 1,29 -- of $1,290 a year. even worse, the families i represent would be asked to foot the bill for a big, massive giveaway to the rich. under the republican plan, the wealthiest families, 5,400
families that are the superwealthy in this country, would get a $270 billion break. through the repeal of the estate tax. 100 families in my home state of michigan, the devos family, certainly the trump family. this is not representative of the values of the american people. just saying that the people at the top won't benefit doesn't make it true. read the bill. look at these analyses. this is a giveaway to the wealthiest americans and it is wrong. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 36, the pain-capable unborn child protection act. this legislation passed the house yesterday and i encourage the senate to vote on it soon. i am strongly pro-life. the federal government's most important responsibility is protecting human life, including the lives of the unborn.
additionally, we have a moral obligation to minimize pain and suffering, especially for the most innocent among us. mr. labrador: the united states is one of the only seven countries that allow abortion after 20 weeks. at the 20-week mark, anesthesia is used in fetal surgeries for patients still in utero. for premature babies born at this stage, special care is given to reduce their pain. h.r. 36 will prohibit abortions after the 20-week mark, precisely because of the substantial evidence that unborn babies at this stage can and do feel pain. i am proud to support h.r. 36 and i am glad it passed the house. i will continue to do all i can to advance a culture of life in idaho and in america. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized. or, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? without objection, the
gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. gabbard: mr. speaker, right now 3.5 million americans, our fellow citizens, are facing a humanitarian crisis. in puerto rico the majority of people still lack basic electricity, clean drinking water and medicine. basic necessities just to stay alive. but to speak of the basic resources they need to begin the great task of rebuilding their lives and their communities. it's been days since the hurricane passed over puerto rico, leaving death and destruction in its wake. the people of puerto rico are literally crying out for help. there are far too many, especially those in rural communities, who still have not been reached by those bringing aid. as representative from an island state in hawaii, i can only imagine their frustration and desperation. i urge the administration to dedicate all available divorces -- resources to helping the people of puerto rico, work with congress to pass an emergency aid package to ensure that those
delivering aid have what they need to help the people of puerto rico and save lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to commend the department of veterans affairs for proping a rule that will allow v.a. credentialed health care providers to practice telemedicine across state lines. this is excellent news because our veterans should receive the best care possible, no matter where they live or are located. with advances in technology, we see new opportunities for veterans to obtain coverage through telemedicine, especially in some of our most rural areas. the v.a. rule is similar to a bill introduced together with representative brownley called the vets act. existing license requirement for v.a. service providers are not in line with the technology and care available today.
outdated regulations prevent did -- prevent individuals to receive care within the v.a. system from accessing qualified providers that utilize telemedicine, simply because of geography and a state border. that's wrong and we must change it. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor the vets act, and work to give our veterans access to the best care possible. our service men and women answered their country's call. let's be there for them when they return home. thank you, 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 gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, 58 innocent people were murdered in las vegas. their killer used 12 bunk stocks to convert his semi-automatic weapons to the equivalent of a machine gun. no one should possess one of these devices, let alone 12 of them. that's why i'm introduced legislation to ban them. i'm mindful, mr. speaker, that we've been here before. after newtown, aurora, san
bernardino, orlando, and so many other mass shootings, each time our republican friends have refused to afpblgt now in the wake of the worst mass shooting -- act. now in the wake of the worst mass shooting in modern history, our republican colleagues are refusing to act and make the problem worse by pressing proposals that will make the problem worse, making it easier to carry a concealed weapon and buy a silencer. this is insane. i get. it elections have consequences. you won last -- i get it. elections have consequences. you won last november so you get to do what you want. but this is wrong. let's come together and do something. i promise you, if congress fails to respond to the demand for commonsense gun safety legislation, we will be held to account by those we serve and rightly so. let's work together and do something. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
we have an incredible opportunity to pass tax cuts for the american people. i appreciate president trump's leadership on this issue, as well as the leadership of chairman brady, in working to pass the president's tax plan. and while we are working on tax cuts, i rise today to urge the chairman and the ways and means committee to also eliminate tax credits for illegal immigrants. most hoosiers get it. mr. messer: we can't continue to reward people who come to our country illegally whirblingse those who work hard and play by the -- illegally, while those who work hard and play by the rules struggle to get ahead. i've oftened legislation to close a loophole that allows $7 billion in refundable child tax credits to be paid out to illegal immigrants every year. this money should be used to increase the child tax credit for law-abiding american families. president trump included this proposal in his budget request to congress and i believe it should be included in the president's broader tax plan.
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 gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. lawrence: mr. speaker, i rise today to fully support the funding of chip, the children's health insurance program. chip plays a very important role in providing low-income children across the country with health insurance. without chip, over nine million children nationwide, including 90,000 in my great home in michigan, will lose access to doctor checkups, immunizations and basic health care. for last two days we've heard numerous concerns for the unborn children. we must show that same compassion toward the low-income children who are alive and living in our communities, who
have access to critical health care, including chip, as a matter of life or death. chip's impact is felt in communities of color. 52% hispanic and 54% of all black children nationwide. as members of congress we have a duty to protect our nation's children. we need to extend funding for chip and support the millions of families who rely on this program. i thank you and i yield back. let's take care of our children in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to re-- mr. defazio: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name from h.r. 367. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. defazio: may i proceed with my one minute? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: mr. speaker, in light of the tragic and horrific
events this sunday, i believe our focus should be on bipartisan efforts to investigate the causes and lessen the potential for gun violence in america. that's why i'm calling on speaker ryan to name a select committee to address these issues. additionally, i believe the republican leadership should formally withdraw their so-called sportsman's package, which has many objectionable provisions. furthermore, we need to bring to the floor a vote on comprehensive background check legislation that includes closing the gun show loophole and individual internet sale loophole. there's overwhelming support in the public and this congress for those actions. i'd like to see what the investigation reveals and whether a suppresser would have allowed this monster to create more carnage. however, we do know he used something called a bump stock which i'd never heard of before. anything that converts a semi-automatic weapon into something that is virtually a
fully automatic weapon, which are outlawed, should not be sold. the bump stocks and any other devices like that should be banned. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? excuse me, california. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i rise in disbelief that this congress has shamefully allowed the children's health insurance program, chip, to expire earlier this week. chip provides health care to 8.9 million low-income children in our country and to over two million children in my home state of california. my republican colleagues have spent all their time and energy this year fighting to repeal health care for millions of americans covered by the affordable care act. and now they have failed to protect health care for our
country's children. if we do not act quickly, it could soon lead to states not enrolling children and potentially even denying them coverage all together, due to the lack of funding. mr. carbajal: it is critical we fund chip program without delay and provide certainty to these families, that they will not lose their health coverage because of this irresponsible and derelict congressional inaction. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my rafment -- remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. brown: three days after congress allowed the children's health insurance program to expire, this house once again passed the bill that restricts women's health and reproductive rights. this should not be the time to prioritize politics. women should not be able to --
women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care. over the past 40 years, the supreme court has affirmed a woman's constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose. not only is the 20-week ban imposed by this congress not based on accepted science, this ban disregards the role doctors play in making health decisions. in states that have already passed this ban, young people, women of color, low-income women and immigrant women are the ones the most impacted by the ban. if we care about women's health, we should work to reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception and support maternal and children's health. instead, the majority is slashing medicaid, attacking planned parenthood, and passing bans. not me. i'll remain committed to protecting women's health and supporting the constitutional right to choose. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the
gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 553 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 90. ouse resolution 553, resolved,that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the concurrent resolution h.con.res. 71, establishing the congressional budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2018 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2019 through 2027. the first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. general debate shall not exceed four hours, with three hours of general debate confined to the congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the
budget and one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by representative tiberi of ohio and representative carolyn maloney of new york or their respective designees. after general debate the concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. no amendment shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. all points of order against such amendments are waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment.
after the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment and a final period of general debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget, the committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution to the house with such amendment as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered by the chair of the committee on the budget pursuant to section 305-a-5 of the congressional budget act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question of its adoption. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate that, and i would tell you that during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.
i would like to yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from massachusetts, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i'd also like to ask unanimous consent that all of my colleagues may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, it's going to be a great day. i don't know how your wednesday has gotten started, but we are now in the throes of budget day. budget day only happens on the floor of this house once a year, and it's one of those times where i would tell you the house operates as every man, woman and child across this country believes the house should operate every day. i have the great honor as a member of the rules committee and as a member of the budget committee of bringing this structured rule to the floor today. mr. speaker, h.con.res 71, the rule that we'll be debating for the next hour, makes in order every single budget substitute
that was offered in the rules committee. let me tell you what that means in practical terms. over the next two days, we're going to hear visions laid out for what the american government should spend, what american policy should look like, what the federal budget should include. over the next two days, we will hear visions laid out from every single member, group in this institution that cared enough about this process to craft a budget of their own. mr. speaker, i serve in the republican study committee. i was once chairman of the budget and spending task force on the republican study committee. i had the honor of crafting a substitute budget to bring to the floor to offer for my colleagues' consideration. over the next two days, any member who has a voice that needs to be heard has had the opportunity. we put out the call last week. my friend from massachusetts and, i we sit on the rules committee, mr. speaker.
we sent out the call to the membership in advance to say this is what we expect to happen in the rules committee. this is what we're going to be considering in the rules committee. we sent out the call for any member of this house to craft their substitute amendment, and we received four. we received four. we received one from the congressional black caucus. we received one from the progressive caucus. we received one from the republican study committee. and we received one from the democrats on the budget committee. every single one of those has been made in order by the rule that i will ask my colleagues to support today. we're going to debate those. we are going to vote on those each individually, allowing everybody to have their say, and that budget that this house ultimately agrees on, collectively, collaboratively after these days of debate, we'll then send to the united states senate for its consideration. mr. speaker, they say that budgets are a reflection of values. i believe that to be true. we're going to have budgets on
the floor of the house to consider that cut taxes. budgets that believe that the economy has not grown to its full potential, budgets that believe that the american work force participation rate is still at historically low levels and we have to get men, women back into the work force, we have to reward that dignity of work. we have budgets that are going to cut taxes in an effort to stimulate that job growth across this land. we have other budgets that are concerned we are not bringing enough revenue into the government coffers. it's true, mr. speaker. i know you're thinking it. we're bringing in more tax revenue today than we ever have in the history of the united states of america. that's true. but we are still running budget deficits, and so we'll consider those budget today that don't necessarily believe that spending is the problem. they think it's tax collection that's the problem. we'll consider budgets that raise taxes by about $2 trillion. we'll consider other budgets that raise taxes by about $4 trillion.
mr. speaker, i think we'll even consider budgets that raise taxes by $9 trillion. mr. speaker, there are only two things that can happen in this institution. we either have to raise more revenue or we have to cut spending or we have to mortgage our children's future. three things. raise taxes, cut spending, mortgage our children's future. next two days we are going to have that debate and we're going to have that discussion. i know where my constituency lands, mr. speaker. there are tough decisions that have to be made, mr. speaker, and they believe they sent men and women here to do that. if you haven't had a chance to work with her this season, chairwoman diane black on the house budget committee, if there is a more patient and more persistent member of this body, i don't know who that would be. she has worked tirelessly to move this process along to get us to where we are today trying to get people together around a
unified vision of what we can do and what we should do, not just as an institution, but as a nation. i expect we'll have some disagreements over the next two days, mr. speaker. won't surprise me at all. in fact, i think this institution is characterized by the things that we disagree about. certainly that's what the media would like to focus on. but at the end of this process, what will have to be said is we have considered every idea, that we have considered every point of view, that we have made room for every voice and that we have now come together on a common pathway forward. that is what is ahead of us, mr. speaker, if we support this rule that we're debating now. again, i urge my colleagues to support this rule. i hope you will find that budget that meets your constituency needs, support that underlying budget and then let's move a budget to the united states senate and speak with one voice for the american people. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman
from georgia, my good friend, mr. woodall, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i obviously rise in strong opposition to this rule. d mr. speaker, this can be a frustrating place. so frustrating that sometimes i want to tear the remaining two strands of hair on my head out in my what we do here, opinion, is not to advance anything that is good for the american people. this is a frustrating place because what happens on this house floor is either nothing or you guys make things worse. on sunday, we once again witnessed a massacre. the worst mass shooting in american history. people across this country are
demanding action, but the response of the republican leadership in this congress is nothing. we had a moment of silence, but it means nothing because that's all we do. there are no hearings, no debate, no votes, nothing. just absolutely nothing. and it's obvious that too many epublicans have been intimidated and have been frightened or have been bought off by the national rifle association. it's shameful and quite frankly it's disgusting. if the republican leadership of this house is not willing to lead, then move aside. allow us to bring measures to the floor so we can have a vote, so we can have a debate, so we can enact measures that might save some lives. and mr. speaker, what we're considering today, this republican budget, is an
example of the majority making things worse for the american people. you know, budgets are moral documents. they show what we value and what we care about, and if this budget reflects republican values, then shame on republicans. i mean, when you look at the specific programs house republicans target, it becomes clear just how cruel this budget really is. you know, last night in the rules committee i complained loudly to the distinguished chairwoman of the budget committee about the cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program, known as snap. basically a program that provides poor people food. it helps prevent hunger in this country. in this budget, they call for $164 billion in cuts. $164 billion in cuts to this program. the chairwoman said, well, i believe that people who get this benefit ought to work, and i pointed out to her last night
and i am going to point out to my colleagues here today, that the majority of people on this program, 67% of the people who are on this program are not expected to work. why? because they're children, because they're senior citizens, because they're disabled. of those who can work, the majority work. of those who can work, the majority work. but you have individuals who are working, who are on snap because they earn so little that they still qualify for this program. o why aren't we demanding that work pay more in this country? why not demanding an increase in the minimum wage so it's a livable wage so people that work don't have to be on public assistance? instead, you know, we have yet another attack on poor people in the form of these cuts.
you know, the gentlelady said, well, i want to narrow it down to just abled bodied adults without dependents. they ought to work. most of these people do work, mr. speaker, but many of them don't work for a number of reasons. many have limited educational experience with 80% having no more than a high school education or a g.e.d. some are aging out of foster care. some have underlying mental health issues, difficult history of substance abuse or ex-offenders with nowhere else to turn, and as many as 60,000 of these able bodied adults without dependents, you know, our -- who are qualified for snap initially are veterans. . these are courageous men and women who have served our country, who have returned home and are having difficulty reintegrating into the
community, getting on their feet. and our gratitude for their service is, you know, we're going to throw you off a food benefit? i mean, i don't know what people are thinking who drafted this in the budget. the chairwoman of the budget committee said, it's important that we constantly review programs to see if they're working, if they're living up to our expectations. i agree. i'm a liberal democrat. i want to make sure that whatever programs are in existence are working. are effective. nobody's for ineffective government. and i happen to sit on the agriculture committee. and we have already held 23 oversight hearings on this program. 23 on snap alone. and we've had republican witnesses and we've had democratic witnesses. as my friend from georgia knows, his party is in control, so republicans get to have more witnesses than democrats do.
but we've had 23 hearings. , d not one witness, not one recommended $164 billion cut in this program. in fact, what they recommended, democrats and republicans, was that we ought to strengthen wrap-around services. so that means, like you ought to fund fully job training programs so that states can guarantee people a slot in a job training program. many argued, democratic and republican witnesses, that the benefit is too inadequate. that we need to expand the benefit. because contrary to what you hear oftentimes on this floor, about snap and about how general rowls the benefit is and that people -- generous the benefit is and that people are, you know, it's like a gravy train, if you will, the average snap benefit is $1.40 per person per meal. that's it. that's the benefit. and that's why when you talk to the heads of food banks all
across the country, in every state in this country, they tell you the same thing. that they experience an uptick in people who need to utilize their services in the middle and toward the end of the month because basically the benefit is not enough to carry them through the month. so they can put enough food on the table for them and their families. we have 42 million people in the united states of america, the richest country in the history of the world, that are hungry. i'm ashamed of that. and i'm ashamed because hunger is a political condition. what i mean by that is, we can solve it but we don't. because for some reason this population, these people struggling in poverty, never quite rise to the level as the very wealthy in this country. you know, -- and we have a budget here that not only cuts snap, but basically cuts a whole bunch of other programs aimed at
helping people get out of poverty and helping struggling middle class families. and this -- basically this budget, just so everybody's clear, is kind of a blueprint to help pave the way for the republican tax cut bill that they're going to produce on this floor in the not too distant future. it was interesting last night in the rules committee, we heard people talk about, we have to make tough choices because we don't want to saddle our children and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren with debt. well, if in fact, you know, my republican friends get their wish, and pass this tax cut, we're told it will add about $2.4 trillion to our debt. and the deal is this, mr. speaker. one of the faults in their budget is they have these assumptions that we all know are not true. like, for example, that the
affordable care act is going to kind of mysteriously disappear. and they're going to be able to cut medicaid by close to $1 trillion to help offset the cost of their tax cut. but, you know, last time i checked their repeal barely passed this house and it can't seem to get anywhere in the united states senate. so their assumptions are fantasy. they're not based on reality. mr. speaker, it's not just food assistance that this budget dismantles. it cuts half a trillion dollars in medicare and ends the medicaid -- ends the medicare guarantee. it rips apart the affordable care act, drastically raising health care costs for older and low-income adults. and kicks another 20 million people off their health insurance. if they get their wish here. it makes higher education more expensive. it cuts veterans' benefits. it reduces our commitment to ensuring that our neighbors have access to affordable housing. it even sticks the american taxpayer with a $1.6 billion
bill to begin constructing a costly and stupid and ineffective wall along the u.s. southern border with mexico. in case people are scratching their heads, i mean, during the campaign donald trump said that mexico was going to pay for the wall. i guess he didn't mean it. because a down payment is put into their budget. i go on and on and on. but you might ask yourself, mr. speaker, who wins? the answer is similar. if this budget goes through and they pave the way for their tax cut, the winners are going to be -- it's clear who the winners are. donald trump, the trump family, and all of his wealthy friends. because while all these cuts in the budget come from our safety net programs, infrastructure investments and programs that help middle and working class families, none of the savings in this budget, that's right, not one penny come from closing tax loopholes to benefit big corporations or the wealthy. as i said before, the drastic
cuts are all being used to try to finance this massive tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest in this country. give me a break. give me a break. mr. speaker, it is golf balling -- galling how indifferent so many in this house seem to be to those who are struggling in poverty. americans, know, most vulnerable, grant they had don't have super p.a.c.s, they don't have big lobbyists. their voice in washington is supposed to be us. the whole purpose of government in my view is to make sure that everybody guess a fair shake. and the people who need government the most are the people who are struggling in poverty. but to listen to my colleagues and to look at this budget that they put together, it is clear that the poorest americans in this country are being treated
as if they don't exist. they're invisible. they don't matter. i just find that deeply offensive. president kennedy said it this way, he said, if the free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. so it's frustrating. it is just frustrating that here are with this budget, which devastates so much of what i think is important. i mean, if we implemented what this budget asks us to do, this country would become a tale of two cities. and it's already getting to that point. but it would truly become a tale of two cities. it would create a government without a conscience. and i think we need to push back and we need to reject that. mr. speaker, this isn't some ayn rand fantasy where we can justs me with the numbers and see what happens -- we can just mess with the numbers and see what happens. we're talking about real people
here. people who are counting on us. people who need help. and this budget fails by any measure, in my opinion, to be a budget, even for republicans to support -- a budget even for republicans to support. so i believe america's middle class families and all those working to struggle to get in the middle class deserve a heck of a lot better than this. so i would urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and certainly vote against this cruel republican budget. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, you heard the passion of my friend from massachusetts. and i have had an opportunity to work with him on the rules committee for seven years now. i can tell you that every bit of that passion is sincere. so often i think folks turn on c-span, they look at a group of politicians talking and they think it's all for the cameras
and it's all for show and i will tell you that while i sometimes have that same suspicion when i turn on a program with folks i don't know, with folks i do know, i can tell you that that passion is sincere. what i can also tell you is that many of those concerns are misguided. and i think that's important. what happens here in this institution matters. and our ability to have that debate with one another matters. and the truth is, as you know, mr. speaker, most of that debate doesn't happen here on the house floor. my friend from massachusetts and i are here today because it's time to vote. we're here to bring the rule, we're here to bring the substitute, we're here over the next two days to vote. but the conversation has gone on not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, but for the better part of this year on what the budget is going to look like. i happen to have a copy of the budget report right here, mr. speaker. it captures all votes we've taken. it captures all the debate we've had. and it captures what the intent
of the institution is. now, again, we're going to have a choice of which budget we want to support. if you think taxes are too low, you can vote to raise taxes. if you think taxes are much too low, you can vote to raise taxes a whole, whole lot. if you think the tax code as it exists today is a ridiculous compilation of confusing provisions, stitched together by a patchwork of congresses over the last 40 years, you can vote for fundamental reform. if you're tired of the fact that america used to be number one in the world in terms of tax competitiveness and now we're at the bottom of the list, and you want to take america backs to being number one, you can vote for -- back to being number one, you can vote for that too. i happen to put myself in that category. but i want to read from the budget report. the fact is, i can't. i imagine myself a younger man when i grabbed that report. if i can now read from the -- the resolutions
-- resolution's reconciliation instructions, that's what's in the budget, mr. speaker, that's what allows us to take a tax package from the house to the senate, you've heard about how the senate's having a tough time getting anything done because it requires a supermajority, requires 60 votes through reconciliation, you can get things done with less than 60 votes. that's how the affordable care act was passed. with less than 60 votes. you can get the tax bill passed with less than 60 votes. it says this. the resolution's reconciliation instructions is that the committee on ways and means will develop will be a comprehensive deficit-neutral tax reform legislation and report such legislative language to the committee on the budget. deficit neutral. deficit neutral. nobody want to blow a hole in the budget, mr. speaker. what the discussion is is can we do better than today's tax code? and candidly, mr. speaker, if any member of this body wants to take the position that we can't do any better, the i.r.s. is as
good as it can be in implementing the american tax code today, the tax code that's twice as lock as the bible is absolutely as concise and succinct as it can possibly be, those americans who spend dozens of hours, even dozens of days, even dozens of weeks trying to put together their taxes, that's just the best we can do. mr. speaker, i've seen it happen. sometimes folks throw their hands up and think, we can't do any better. not me, not today. we can all agree that we can do better than what we're doing today, passage of this budget gives us that opportunity. you heard my friend from massachusetts speak from the heart, mr. speaker. about the ability we have as a government to care for one another. i would tell you that responsibility isn't uniquely a government responsibility. i'd say it's a faith responsibility, it's a family responsibility, it's a community responsibility, it's a responsibility that begins at home. it doesn't begin here.
it begins at home. but it is a sincere responsibility and it's one that we want to do better at every day. i'm sure you're aware, mr. speaker, the labor force participation rate in america is the lowest it's been since the president from my great state of georgia, jimmy carter, was in office. the labor force participation operate. there's no not one of us in this body -- there's not one of us in this body that can drive down the street and not see a help wanted sign. there's not one of us who can go to a business that isn't asking folks to help, yet fewer americans are working today than ever before. why? it's a hard question. fewer americans are working today than since the 1970's. why? it's important that we ask that question. the budget's not designed to answer it. the budget can't answer it. i sit on the budget committee. i don't have the jurisdiction to answer. it but i know this. -- answer it.
but i know. this will you find in this budget -- but i know this. you will find in this budget a discussion about whether it's better to support people in poverty or lift folks out of poverty. it doesn't have to be neutral -- mutually exclusive. i would tell you we can support folks until we can lift them up but that lifting them up must be our goal, supporting them is not enough. . you'll find it here, mr. speaker, in these pages. this is what we're gathered to do and we will have legitimate disagreements about when we're doing enough in a particular area and when we're doing too much. there are those in this body, mr. speaker, who believe passionately in education. i am one of those folks. i come from a district with amazing school systems. you can go to any public school in my district, mr. speaker, if you work hard apply yourself, i don't care what your background is, where your family is from, i don't care what you have stacked against you, if you work hard and apply yourself in our public schools, you can be anything you
want to be. that is erybody want for their constituency back home. and i have colleagues who believe that only washington, d.c., is successful enough, as a track record of success strong enough to implement that vision back home. i don't come from that camp. i see a lot of failure come out of washington, d.c. i see a loft bureaucracy come out of washington, d.c. i see success come out of parents and teachers and principals back home, raising taxes, supporting those institutions, making sure every child has a chance. we do that together as a community. the discussion that we might have in this institution, mr. speaker, is not do you believe in education, it's do you believe educators in washington, d.c., have the best answers or educators back home in your district have the answers? the truth is we don't have many educators in washington, d.c. we have bureaucrats in washington, d.c., who oversee educators. i side with my educators back home.
it's a legitimate disagreement that we're welcomed to have. what can't be said, though, mr. speaker, is there are any disagreements over the next few days that we're not going to be allowed to have. i have said it before and say it again because it makes me proud. we don't always have time or make room for all the voices in this institution, mr. speaker. you know, sometimes we pick and choose winners and losers, whose voice is going to be heard. not today. any member of congress could submit their budget to the united states house of representatives, committee on rules. it's a hard thing to produce a budget. i have told you i have done it before, mr. speaker. it takes a lot of time, effort, and commitment. if you believe you have a better idea, can you do it. if you did it we made it in order in the rules committee last night and we'll debate it on the floor and vote on it on the floor. we can't always say that that very single idea, every single
substitute is going to make it to the floor for a vote. we can say that today. i'm proud that we can. it's not going to stop the disagreements, mr. speaker. but what it is going to do is air those disagreements. what it is going to do is allow us to talk about our differing visions. what it is going to do is allow us to come together on a common vision tend of the day. i hope my colleagues will support this rule so we can begin that process. i hope my colleagues will support the underlying budget of their choice. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter from the united states conference of catholic bishops in opposition to the republican budget. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert a letter from the coalition on human needs against the republican budget. i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert a letter to all members of congress from the national hispanic leadership agenda against this republican budget. i'd like to also ask unanimous consent to submit a letter from the aarp, the main street alliance, and league of
conservation voters all in strong opposition to the republican budget. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i just want to make sure that it's clear that certainly on the democratic side we're very much dedicated to trying to lift people out of poverty. that's one of the reasons we oppose this republican budget. it cuts $211 million from financial aid programs to help people be able to get additional hire education. that's one of the reasons why we have complained loudly about the inadequate funding for job training. you want people to train for employment. you need to make sure that those slots vailable so people can -- available so people can get the training they need. the gentleman says don't worry about the debt because the reconciliation instructions will
instruct the ways and means committee to do a deficit neutral tax plan. well, i mean, there's lots instruct the of stuff in here that are assumptions that aren't true. like you repeal the affordable care act. that didn't happen. it's not going to happen. what we're told by the -- the tax policy center and the committee for responsible budget, according to their analysis, what the republicans are proposing in terms of their tax plan will basically cost well over $2 trillion. and that will be added to our debt. i don't -- we could debate fantasy land if we want, but the reality is the reality. and this budget is a bad deal for everybody. streak, this week our nation witnessed the deadliest mass shooting in history. we have endured horrific mass killings in newtown, san bernardino, orlando, and now las vegas among many others all without any congressional action. the killings happen every single day on our streets, at public
events, and even in our homes. mr. speaker, my heart broke when the children of sandy hook were killed and i remain absolutely done this congress has nothing about it. nothing. now 59 people lost their lives in las vegas during what was supposed to be a celebratory event. a concert. this is only 60 months after the last deadliest mass shooting in orlando. gun violence in this country is out of control. and all we have done done nothing about it. is cater to the gun lobby. the united states congress is a legislative body, mr. speaker. we're not a think tank or a church or a synagogue. thoughts and prayers are not what this country expects from us. it is not what it needs from us. the people of this country need us to act. to pass laws that protect their lives and their children's lives. as my colleague in the senate, senate chris murphy, has said, i quote, this must stop. it is positively infuriating that my colleagues in congress are so afraid of the gun
industry that they pretend there aren't any public policy responses to this epidemic. there are and the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with legislative indifference, end quote. for this reason f. we defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up mr. thompson's bill, h.res. 367, which i'm a co-sponsor of, which would establish the select committee on gun violence prevention. mr. speaker, let me explain what i mean when i say defeat the previous question. we're here debating which bills will come to the house floor this week. the agenda for the house of representatives. the majority chose to consider their misguided budget, fine. we can do that. but what i'm saying is that we should also take the first step in at least setting up a committee to look at gun violence in america. so, if we we're here debating which bills will come say no to ending debate on this rule, by defeating the previous question, we can then debate whether or
not to create this committee. this is the least we can do. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. and to discuss our proposal i'm happy to yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. five eaker, it's almost years ago that this nation witnessed the terrible tragedy of sandy hook elementary school, where 20 first graders were murdered in their five classroo along with six of their teachers. congress did nothing. charleston, a church in charleston, a white supremacy -- premises walked in and murdered nine worshipers. congress did nothing. orse than that congress didn't
even address what's called the charleston loophole that allowed this deranged white supremist to buy a condition or obtain a gun he was buying without even address what's called the completingloophole the background check. orlando, florida, the nightclub, 49 people murdered. congress did nothing. the congressional baseball game, ne of our own was shot by some deranged murderer. congress did nothing. las vegas, just this past days, the country music festival, 49 people completing the background check. murdered. the biggest mass shooting in the history of the united states of america. 273rd sad, it is the mass shooting in the united states of america this year. so what's congress going to do? more nothing? that's not appropriate. in the almost five years since sandy hook, we have been working on our side of the aisle diligently to try and come up some ideas, some solutions to
help prevent gun violence. and we have come up with some. matter of fact, one of them is a bipartisan measure with a bipartisan co-author on my bill, mr. peter king from new york, and we have four, five republican co-authors on that ill. have we had a hearing? no. have we had a vote? no. all we're trying to do with that bill is expand background checks. to make sure that criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can't buy have we had a firearms easily. make it more difficult for these folks who we know commit crimes with these guns, make it more difficult for them to get their hands on a gun. it's within the confines of the second amendment. just expands the already existing background checks to include commercial sale of firearms across the country. no hearings, no votes.
instead, our friends on the other side of the aisle have their own gun agenda. they want to legalize silencers. they want to remove the restrictions on silencers. police entities and officers and chiefs and sheriffs across the country have told us that this is dangerous. it puts the people that we risk.ent at but that's their gun agenda. if you don't like the ideas that we have brought forward, please bring something forward other than deregulating silencers that will help with this epidemic that we're facing in our country. 30 people a day are killed by someone using a gun. what are your ideas? nothing. silence. the only thing we have heard now , we hear from your leadership that we're not going to discuss policy in regard to gun violence prevention. that's why we came to congress.
that's why every one of us ran for congress. was to work on policy. that's why our constituents sent us to congress to vote on policy. but on the heels of 59 people being murdered the day before yesterday, what are we told? we're not going to do policy on gun violence prevention. that's not responsible. the bill that my friend, mr. mcgovern, talked about, my bill, that he's a co-author on, would establish a select committee, democrats and republicans, to sit down at the same table and try and find some solutions to help prevent gun violence. and then move that to the house for consideration. that's all we want. we want these issues to be heard. we want to be able to do our job, our constituents want to vote on these issues that are important to the safety of every single person in the united
stas of america. i ask that we defeat the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. if you have not tuned in to this debate until just these past few minutes, you mht not know that this is the budget debate today. we have been prepping for the budget debate today for about 10 months now. and we're ready today. not just with one budget, but with a variety of budget choices. what's wonderful about this process is, it has been such an open process, you can come down house floor and air absolutely any idea that's on your mind. that's not just been true today, mr. speaker. that's been true toughout this entire budget process. in fact, i have a letter sipped by literally hundreds of groups that support, not just voting on the rule to bring the budget to the floor, but groups that
the budget as we pass it out of the househe budge pass it out of the house budget committee. now, if my colleagues ve any concerns about that, i hope they'll come and knock on my door, mr. speaker. i promise you one of these groups will be from their part of the country. certainly in georgia i've got geoia chamber of georgia chamb is on that list. so our folks back home are supportive. if you're from alaba, i have alabamans on here. if you're from baton rouge. from battle creek, i have battle creek. because what we're working on here isn't a republican budget, mr. speaker. working on here isn't a regional budget. what we're working working on ht a regional budget. what we're working on here is the national budget for the united states of america that can be transformational for absolutely every citizen in absolutely every corner of this country. we have that opportunity. i think we're going to seize that opportunity, but we can't do it until we move this rule to get to the underlying bills. i encourage my colleagues to do that. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts
is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record letters from the u.a.w., s.e.i.u., the national treasury -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: police union, american federation of narf ent employees, and record, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me say to my colleague from georgia, thank you for reminding us that you advice guys have been working on the budget for 10 months, but according to your own republican budget committee website, the budget was supposed to be presented and finished by april 15. so are you a little late. . i also want to remind the gentleman, i know he knows this, that the rule sets the agenda for the house. one of the things that the republicans want to bring up is their terrible budget. that's fine. you can do that. but the rule can also be an opportunity for us to bring up the bill that mr. thompson has authored. to set up this commission to
deal with gun violence. we can do both. you can walk and you can chew gum at the same time. there is not a radical idea. this is our only way to be able to bring something to the floor because the leadership of this house has said no to everything. they've sid -- said no to everything. we cabinet get hearings. we can't -- can't get hearings. we can't get votes. we can't get debates. we get nothing. so don't -- no one should be startled by us trying to defeat the previous question. it's perfectly legitimate way to try to expand the agenda. i hope some of my republican friends will vote with us to defeat the previous question. we can still do the budget but we can also do the thompson bill as well. mr. speaker, at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from delaware. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. blunt rochester: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.con.res. 71, the republicans' proposed budget.
this plan would make extreme and irresponsible cuts to domestic spending programs and weaken our nation's social safety net. we should be proposing a budget that provides for real economic growth. we should be strengthening programs that help young americans access higher education and increasing infrastructure funding and investing in our nation's roads and bridges. we should be focused on vision, as operation, a budget reflective of our great nation and the great things we can do. this budget instructs my friend from massachusetts and my committee to find $10 billion in cuts to agriculture programs over the next 10 years. this decrease will effect our ability to fund essential usda programs across our country in every congressional district. these are programs that farmers, schoolchildren, families,
communities and americans rely on. where we will we -- where will we be forced to take the money from? rural development, conservation programs, our already insufficient nutrition programs or resources for schools? at a time when spending on fighting wildfires has surpassed previous records, will we cut that budget? and this budget and accompanying tax plan does not put us on strong fiscal ground either. many people don't realize the significance of agricultural industry in delaware. our state is filled with family farmers that produce specialty cropscommodities. delaware has the highest number of chickens per capita. 300 in any state in the nation. and many of these farmers rely on the very programs that we will be forced to undermine if these cuts are realized. and that hurts all americans. access to food is not just a farmer's issue. it will effect rural
communities, urban communities and all of us. this is not a responsible way to govern. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i'd say to my friend from massachusetts that i have no further speakers remaining and i'd be happy to close when the gentleman's prepared. mr. mcgovern: yeah. thank you, mr. speaker. i think we're -- right? so i'll close. i yield myself the remaining time. so, mr. speaker, i just wanted to tell my colleague from georgia in case he hasn't read our, you know, what we're trying to propose here, i mean, we basically would -- we're suggesting that you bring up the thompson bill to the floor under an open rule. and even get a motion to recommit. but under an open rule. take us up on this offer because we've had no open flules this congress. try it, you might like. it might be contagious. we might see more open rules where democrats and republicans,
liberals and conservatives can offer their ideas. we suggest you bring it up. we bring it up under open rule. i urge all of my colleagues to think about that before they cast their vote on defeating the previous question. mr. speaker, you know, i began by saying the frustration i have with this place is that we either do nothing or we do -- we make things worse for people. you know, going back to this issue on creating a commission to deal with gun violence, you know, there's a lot of things i'd like to do. but maybe this is a way to get some bipartisan buy-in to trying to figure out how to respond to this epidemic of gun violence. you know, there have been 26 bills on gun safety introduced in this congress. i ask unanimous consent to insert that in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: sponsored by democrats and republicans. people have their ideas. some of them are, you know, maybe not so good ideas, some of
them may be very good ideas. but let's begin to talk about what our response should be. that's at least doing something. that's better than a moment of silence, you know, or offering your thoughts and prayers to eople who were victims in this terrible latest massacre. we've got to do something. and nothing is no longer sufficient. can't keep on doing that. i mean, people are horrified that congress seems indifferent. we can't even have a hearing on this issue. never mind a debate on the floor. so i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring up the thompson bill and maybe we can start coming together and coming up with some ideas that might save some lives. that's the least we can do. and then, mr. speaker, to my other point about -- we eith doer nothing or you guys do
things -- either do nothing or you guys do things that mike life worse for people, it brings us to the -- makes life worse for people, it brings us to the budget. this budget is a cruel budget that targets disproportionately those who are poor and those in the middle class. it is astouppeding to me -- astounding to me where some of the saveings are sought. i mean, the idea that you would cut snap by $164 billion, a program that provides food to people, a program that -- where 67% of the people on the benefit are children or senior citizens or people who are disabled. a program where those who can work, the majority of them work, but they earn so little in the work force that they still qualify for this program. you want to take that benefit away? a benefit that's $1.40 per person per meal? i mean, come on. what are people thinking when they make those kind of suggestions? by the way, we all know what this is. it's basically a pretext to move forward on your tax cut plan
which benefits donald trump, donald trump's family and donald trump's friend. you know this idea that somehow it's going to be deficit-neutral is laughable. the o.m.b. director, mick mulvaney, stated and i quote, if we simply look at this as being deficit-neutral, you're never going to get the type of tax reform and tax reductions that you gates are looking for -- that you guys are looking for. that's the former colleague and o.m.b. director. so this is -- we all know what's going on here. people ought to think long and hard before they cast their vote for this republican budget. budgets basically indicate what we value. what we think is important. and i have to tell you, i just don't believe if people read this budget that the majority of my friends, we have disagreements on lots of issues, but i just don't believe that deep in your heart you actually believe this stuff. i mean, this is offensive. we ought to be talking about
lifting people up and not putting them down. we ought to be talking about all of the citizens of this country with respect and treating them with dignity. and we ought not treat people in poverty as if somehow they're invisible and that's what this budget does. so i urge my colleagues to vote down this republican budget. i urge them to defeat the previous question. so we can bring up under an open rule, under an open rule, which nobody in this congress has seen , a bill that would allow us to create a commission, a bipartisan commission to deal with gun violence. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. combliled self such time as i -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, what i love most about budget day is the fact that we do get to talk about our competing ideas. do i reject some of the implications that we've heard, that what we're talking about is whether we love people or not.
that's not the debate today. i want to stipulate that i know the men and women of this chamber on a personal basis and each and every one of them that i know personally loves and cares for their constituents back home. the debate that we have is not whether we love people, it's how to love people best. do you love people best by giving them a check or giving them a job? that's a legitimate debate. do you love people best by leaving their children with them or taking their children away from them? that's a legitimate debate. i believe in families, i believe in the dignity of work. i want to have those debates. i think we do ourselves a disservice when we describe what's going on here today on the floor of the house as anything other than our absolute legal and governmental responsibility to pass a budget for the united states of america. and wherever you sit on the continuum, the political continuum, the economic continuum, the regional continuum, there's a budget for you today.
if what you believe, mr. speaker, is that the problems we have in this country are because taxes are not high enough, there's going to be a democratic substitute coming out of the budget committee that will raise taxes about $2.4 trillion. if you think taxes are too low, we can raise them $2.4 trillion. that budget never balances. that budget never stops borrowing from our children and grandchildren. that budget never stops mortgaging america's future. but it's a legitimate debate. because folks are taking those funds and they're investing them in america, they're prioritizing that investment over balancing. if you believe $2.4 trillion's not enough, mr. speaker, we'll have a budget from the congressional black caucus on the floor today that will raise taxes by $4.2 trillion. we can raise taxes by $4.2 trillion. again, that budget never balances, it spends all that money and more. but it's a legitimate debate about where those dollars come from and where those dollars are going. i'm glad we're going to be able to have it. if raising taxes by $4.2
trillion isn't enough for you, mr. speaker, we have the progressive budget on the floor, it raises taxes by just over $10 trillion. again, the budget never balances, it spends all of that money and more, continues to borrow from our children and grandchildren, buts a legitimate debate and -- but it's a legitimate debate and it's a conversation worth having and i'm proud that the rules committee made that debate in order. to describe what's happening on the floor of the house today, mr. speaker, as anything other than what's exactly expected of this institution is to do us all a diss. i talked about make tax -- a disservice. i talked about making taxes higher, let me talk for a second about make taxes lower. i talked to friends back home, i've talked to constituents, i've talked to folks for whom i work. and some of them might say, rob, i have enough to feet my -- feed my family and if it means paying down the debt and deficit, i'm willing to pay a little bit more. other members in the community, mr. speaker, say, for pete's sake, i'm trying to grow a business here, rob, i'm trying
to employ your friends and neighbors, i'm trying to keep the community working. i'm plowing everything i have back into the business. if i don't have to pay as much in taxes, i'm going to be able to hire more people. the republican budget, mr. speaker, takes a shot at once in a generation tax reform. once in a generation. this isn't what we talked about last year, the year br that, the year before that -- the year before that, the year before that. this is a conversation we have not had since ronald reagan and tip o'neill had it in 1986. this is a conversation that we have not had since america slipped from number one in the world to almost last in the industrialized world in terms of tax competitives. this is a conversation that america has longed for and we can deliver today. mr. speaker, let's have these debates about what our priorities are. let's have these debates about whether or not we can do better. and at the end of the day, let's agree that we in fact can do better, that our bosses back home expect us to do better, and
that by supporting this rule and supporting one of the underlying budgets we in fact will do better. i encourage my colleagues, mr. speaker, support this rule. begin this debate. let's pass this budget. let's fulfill our promises. let's make the difference that we all came here to make. with that, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker -- oh -- mr. woodall: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays. mr. woodall: the yeas and nays, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20rks the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the
resolution. 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 gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for a record vote. the speaker pro tempore: a record vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a record vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]