tv U.S. House of Representatives 11032017 CSPAN November 3, 2017 11:00am-1:33pm EDT
by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242 and the nays are 174. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands approved.
the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: mr. majority leader, mr. speaker, i yield to mr. mccarthy, the majority leader from california. 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: 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 and wednesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. on friday new york votes are expected in the house. the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. in addition the house will consider h.r. 3043, the hydropower policy modernization act, sponsored by representative cathy mcmorris rodgers. this will continue our effort to improve america's energy infrastructure by streamlining the ferc licensing project process for hydropower process. we'll also consider two good jobs bill. first, the save local business act, sponsored by representative bradley byrne. this will ensure small piss and franchises across america
receive fair government treatment rather than confusing regulations that harm workers. second, the house will consider h.r. 2201, the microoffering safe harbor act, sponsored by representative tom emmer. part of our innovation initiative, this is a smarter way for entrepreneurs to start new ventures or grow existing businesses. additional legislative items are possible in the house. if anything is added to the schedule i'll be sure to inform my friend and all member. with that, i thank my friend and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for for that information. first i want to start by saying the majority leader and i and four other members of the house had an opportunity to visit both puerto rico and the virgin islands last weekend since we had our last colloquy. first i want to thank the majority leader for organizing that trip. and including me on it. it was a -- an eye-opening trip.
the majority leader and i have done an op-ed which will be appearing at some time on our observations. one of the things i know the majority leader and i had the opportunity to see, we were in marathon, where you had housing that was built after andrew and housing built before andrew. the difference was, after andrew that extraordinary hurricane, the building code was change wesmed saw the stark difference etween housing that survived maria and irma, and housing that did not. the difference was of course that the housing that survived was built to different standards after andrew. the majority leader and i discussed this matter along with mr. bishop who chairs the committee that oversees both puerto rico and the virgin islands and i think all of us are convinced it could be penny wise and pound foolish not to
build back as florida did to standards that can withstand storms of this type. sipted to thank the majority leader for his leadership on this issue. the majority leader took the extraordinary effort to climb down a river bank, go across the river, the river was very low at that point in time an then up a very long ladder because people were stranded on the other side and the majority leader went to see them and assure them that we would not forget them. we were the first codell to go to the interior of puerto rico as opposed to simply going to san juan or another large city. so i thank the majority leader for his leadership on that issue. mr. leader, let me ask you about tax reform that of course has been the big issue of -- for some period of time now. but now we have a bill that's been put on the -- not on the floor yet but was released yesterday.
it's clear this bill will cut taxes, in our view, for the wealthy. i don't know the statistics yet what the division is, whether it's 80-20 as the initial proposal was or perhaps a little less than that, it goes to those other $900,000 in income. in any event, also eliminates ax references the middle class families rely on and we think it's going to face hurdles in congress. when does the gentleman expect the bill to be marked up? and i yield to my friend. mr. mccar -- mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yield, i'm excited about the question because i'm excited for this bill. for more than three decades we have waited for tax reform. many people know the challenge they have is government taking more than they should and the challenge that individuals can raise their paycheck. ways and means announced they'll
start markups next week. i assume and tissue that it will take them probably a week to get through the entire bill, going through regular order, as we do. then i'd assume we bring that to the floor right after. we'd like to get this to the american people as soon as possible. i'm willing to talk about the bill, i'm willing to talk about the bill in any different matter because we spent a lot of time working on this. very first thing that's going to happen for the american public come january 1, they'll get more in their paycheck. because what we do, we take the standard deduction, the current law today, a single individual in america, it's only the first $6,000 they have are tax-free. that's going to go to $12,000. for a couple it's going to go to $24,000. we take seven confusing rates and make it four. it's about cutting them. every rate is lowered except the highest one. then we go and look at how can we make america competitive? we all know, i started my first business when i was 20 years
old. small business is the backbone of this country. small businesses work harder than almost anybody else. we lowerer their rate to 25%. that's the lowest it's been in 40 years. then all this money that's being pushed overseas, they tax too high so people won't bring it back, there's trillions of dollars there, we're going to have the money come back and they're going to invest in america. now, the name of our bill is tax cuts and jobs act. just yesterday i was with a company, broadcomm, we went into the oval office, i had worked with this company for quite some time, they started in america. bell labs was part of it and others. three kind of companies got together. they're technology. they were building. they were growing. what they found was, america's tax code was so burdensome on them that for them to compete around the world they became a company that domiciled in singapore. talking to them just the last
month or so, laying out our tax bill, they said, you know what, we're so confident in you passing that, that we're going to announce we're moving back to america. they have $20 billion a year in revenue. they invest $9 billion every year in r&d and manufacturing. those manufacturing jobs we care so much about. so yesterday we were sitting in the oval office, this is exactly what the c.e.o. said. you know what he talked about? he grew up in singapore he said when i turned 18, the greatest engineering school in america gave me an opportunity, m.i.t. but my paraphernalias did not have wealth but they gave me a scholarship -- mr. foyerer: can we have a little order. the speaker pro tempore: members will take their conversations off the floor, the house will be in order. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. mccarthy: he comes to america, builds a company, said it broke his heart he had to
leave he said he wants to give back to this country that's so good to him. so we're creating jobs even before we pass it. so i'm excited. if i may, i want to do a little research for you. so we've taken all the i.r.s. tax information, i broke it down in a spreadsheet so anyone who wants to know about it, come see me, i'll walk you through it. your district, maryland's fifth, 47% of your filers take the standard deduction. 10 they'll be better because of because it doubles right off the bat. another 11% of those who itemize their deductions won't have to do that anymore. so instead of spending weeks on their taxes, they'll put it on a postcard in a minute. so they're going to get a higher duh ducks, they'll get more money. that means even before lowering of the rates, 58% of your district is better off from day one. now in addition, we repeal the alternative minimum tax, that
a.m.t. so that cost 13,000 of your constituents in your district an average of $3,750. that's wiped away. so as we lower all the brackets, we'll create a great deal of savings for everybody else. i'm excited about this. i'd love to look forward to work with you on it. because just as we just passed the chip bill bipartisan and the ipab, with more than 70 democrats on that i think this has been a very good week for america. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, for his comments. talking about ipab, we added $17.5 billion to the debt. $17.5 billion. the gentleman did not mention the $1.5 trillion in additional debt that the passage of the tax bill will result in. but he did talk about some people who are going to be
really advantaged so i would like to ask the majority leader, will those people who will be van advantaged, or for that matter disadvantaged, have the opportunity to next week testify in a hearing on the substance of this bill. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think this is an excellent question. so first of all, you're asking about hearings. i caught you yesterday. i caught you on tv yesterday. you're pretty good. you were asked about hearings. this is what you said. 5 hearing is when -- mr. hoyer: take the gentleman's remarks down. mr. mccarthy: a hearing is when you ask the public to come in and say, what do you think? what are your suggestions? how will this impact you? since taking the majority, you know what anniversary it is this week? when we rolled this bill out it was the seventh anniversary of the republicans winning on that election day for the majority. this is what we campaigned on. now we've been working quite
some time prior to -- dave camp retired but when he was chairman of ways and means he put out camp proposal. we have been having numerous hearings in this congress that congress. took us to win the white house and the senate but we kept you are promise. let me walk you through what we have done. since taking the majority. we held at least 59 hearings on tax reform with witnesses from all sides on everything from simplification to closing those loopholes we talked so much about together, to creating jobs, accelerating economic growth. that's not to mention the countless town halls and the forums of members held in their districts. that's what you brought up about hearings. we need further witnesses to burden our tax code? look no further than just me. i told you when i was 20 when i started that first business. you know the three lessons i learned in my first business? i was the first one to work. i was the last one to leave. and i was the last one to be
paid. and i remember investing all that i had and it was just a deli, i had six employees,s of early in the morning, the frovent was all glass, here pulled up a little truck from the city. they were knocking on the door two hours before i started. i thought maybe they wanted to give me a key to the city, starting a new business. he wanted to give me a ticket for my sign. i thought that was a little odd. the sign was bring manager people in. paid more sales tax, paid their salary. i learned the challenges of starting a small business. and what's so great about this bill, there's going to be so many more americans who are going to take that risk, start a small business and be successful with so many more americans working. so i'm excited about this. that's what we've been hearing in our hearing. for all those hearings we had, all those town halls, all those years we fought so hard to get to this point. i think this has been a good week. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding, mr. speaker. he did not answer my question,
however. will part-time have an opportunity to testify on this bill? the answer is no. no american will have an opportunity to come to a hearing. in 1986, the gentleman from california, the majority leader, was not here. i was here. we had hearings over months, both sides of the aisle, over 450 witnesses testified. not on tax bills that may have been offered at some time in the future including the camp bill. and when the camp bill, mr. speaker, was reported, actually, wasn't reported, when it was put on the table by chairman camp from michigan who is now retired, the speaker's response was, when asked by the press what are you going to do with blah,ill , he said, blah, blah. in other words what he was saying is all talk. we're not going to do anything with that bill. that bill never saw the light of
day. it was paid for, mr. speaker. it was tough love. now i didn't agree with everything in the camp bill but i congratulate congressman camp for having the courage to put a bill on the floor that was paid for. . not creating $1.5 trillion in additional debt that our children will have to pay. they're not here to testify either. and i don't want to get into really a debate on the specifics. we are going to have a lot of time to do that next week and i intend to do it next week. talk about small businesses being reduced to $25,000 -- 25%. they will be if they make over $500,000. that's why the nfib is not for this bill, mr. speaker. talking about small business. they are the spokespersons for small businesses. they are not for this bill. but we'll talk about the substance. but the process mirrors the process for the affordable care
act. no hearings. no witnesses. very, very little time for the public or the congress to digest the substance of the bill. opped yesterday, will be marked up on monday. that's 96 hours to consider a bill well over 500 pages. mr. mccarthy: less than 500. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i asked about process. the reason i asked about process and regular order is because regular order provides for input from the people we serve. the public. about whether the bill is good, bad or indifferent and how we'll impact them. we are going to debate it here. we represent those, but regular order is hearing from them
before we act, not after we act. yes, we're replicating the affordable care act. put on the table, quickly passed, jammed through, sent to the senate and it didn't work, mr. speaker. and i don't think this will work either, but i was here in 1986, mr. speaker, when tip bob, l and ronald reagan, the republican chair of the finance committee and the chairman of the ways and means committee worked together with jim baker, former secretary of state but then secretary of the treasury, worked with us to come up with a bill that could be passed and it was passed, mr. speaker, with overwhelming votes on both sides of the aisle. and it was the last time we passed tax reform.
under ronald reagan we passed a tax cut in 1981. the deficit increased under onald reagan 189%. and under george h.w. bush, the deficit increased 55% in four years. 189% in eight years. under bill clinton, the debt increased 36%. george w. bush, 87% after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and we were promised they were going to energize the economy and dynamic scoring would come into 11:30 nd the country a.m. not creating $1.5 trillion in additional debt that our children will have to pay. they're not here to testify either.
and i don't want to get into really a debate on the specifics. we are going to have a lot of time to do that next week and i intend to do it next week. talk about small businesses being reduced to $25,000 -- 25%. they will be if they make over $500,000. that's why the nfib is not for this bill, mr. speaker. talking about small business. they are the spokespersons for small businesses. they are not for this bill. but we'll talk about the substance. but the process mirrors the no hearings. no witnesses. very, very little time for the public or the congress to jam the senate and it d 189% in eight years. under bill cli the debt exploded. barack obama, just by contrast, inherited the worst economy any of us have ever seen, the worst economy, hemorrhaging over 780,000 per month in january, 2009. and we had to bring the economy out of that deep recession and we invested dollars. but even given all that billion and the $700 bill we passed that george w. bush which 2/3 republicans opposed and which kept us out a depression barack obama increased the debt by one percentage point more than george w. bush. so i say to my friend, the reasons for having hearings, the reasons for having experts like mr. bartlett who worked for george bush -- excuse me -- roinled reagan who said tax --
ronald reagan who said tax cuts don't work. i may not be here when we can find this out, this is going to be far above $1.5 trillion in additional debt. and my children and my grandchildren and my great grandchildren will be exposed to paying that bill. it is a shame, mr. speaker, that we do not have extensive hearings on this bill. in the house and in the senate. my judgment is the senate doesn't expect to have hearings on this either. they are just going to try to jam it through, mr. speaker. and that's not good for this institution, but, much, much more importantly, it's not good for the present generation or generations to come. but we'll debate, mr. leader. i know you're passionate about the substance. you are very knowledgeable about the substance. we talked about it in private. i admire the passion that you have and the information that
you argue. i may differ with your information, but we'll have the opportunity to debate that, i think, next week and the week after. mr. mccarthy: may i respond? mr. hoyer: i yield. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding. first lesson if you ever take debate, if you cannot win the argument on the substance of the bill, argue about process. go to process. but you know what, this is not the beginning of the process. this is the end of the process. for 31 years we've been working to get here. we had hearings upon hearings. we've gone to the american people. we went to the american people seven years ago this week and they made a very big decision to change the direction. we went back and forth and made another big decision and they made one just shortly. i heard you talk about a lot of presidents but i think you missed one.
and really what this bill does is about growth in this country, about job creation, about raising somebody's paycheck. the history of america from the beginning of time until 2006 we always averaged more than 3% growth. you just take the last eight years, you take the very best year under barack obama and i'll go apples to apples. let's take bill clinton. the growth year under bill clinton's worst year is higher than barack obama's best year. that's why the middle class is hurting. that's why this tax cut helps the middle class. but what's most interesting, you want to talk about debt. you talked about a lot of presidents. well, you can add up all those presidents and you know what, just one president, barack obama, added all that money and more to the debt. but what's more interesting to me of that concern, if my friend -- mr. hoyer: fleeled? mr. mccarthy: if my friend is
worried about the deficit, why did you vote for a budget that increases the deficit over $1.6 trillion over 10 years. why would you do that this year? why would you as a party bring that forward as your plan and hope? you know what we're bringing forward? we're going right through the reuss. we've gone all through the hearings. we know even before this bill passes, just as yesterday, that the companies are coming back to america. $20 billion a year in revenue one company has already announced, and they are going to put $3 billion every year into r&d and $6 billion into manufacturing. i think the debate of process is over. this bill is less than 500 pages. you talk about us bringing up. yeah, so the whole american public can see the bill and read it. much different when we talked about your a.c.a. more than 2,000 pages. and i was here.
i watched what was brought right to the floor and jammed through and you're right. it doesn't work. so we believe in doing something different. we made a promise to the american public. three days. longer than three days. made a promise to the american public, make sure you keep what you earn, we'll create jobs, and you know what happened after that last election, we just went through the second quarter of 3% growth. and you and me just talked about the number of hurricanes we just watched the devastation. people said, i probably knocked off 1% growth. -- it probably knocked off 1% growth. the atlanta fed predicted we'll go to 4.5%. so you know what, the best days of america are in front of us. because of the work we've done before. so let's not argue about process because we know we've been through this process for 31 years. we know what the american public have said. we know in the hearings what they told us and we listened
but now i think it's time to have the courage to lead. let's take what we heard in those committees and put it into a bill exactly what we just did. and to have the returns before the bill's even passed of jobs coming back, to me, like i said earlier, this is a good week but this is going to be a great month. yield back. mr. hoyer: we're going to debate the substance of your bill, mr. leader, i tell the speaker. and we're going to debate it fully. we think it will not hold up well under that debate and, therefore, we will have a significant difference. he's right, the best economy anybody in this house has experienced, the best economy was the last four years of the clinton administration. eriod.
guess what we had? we had a little bit of a tax increase. e increased the gas tax. increased infrastructure. they said if you do that the economy will go down the drain. the best economy any republican has experienced in their lifetime under bill clinton. we balanced the budget four years in a row under bill clinton. the only president you can mention that balanced. never balanced under ronald reagan. never balanced under george h.w. bush. never balanced under george bush. as a matter of fact, when they took office, they cut taxes in 2001 and twee. but they didn't cut spention -- 2001 and 2003, but they didn't cut spending. now, he talks about president obama. i know the majority leader will be interested in these
statistics. i didn't count january of 2017. because after all, that was the obama economy. trump had not done anything. let's start with february, 2017. nder donald trump. 232,000 jobs created. that's great. good. i would say the obama economy still working. same exact month a year earlier , not 232,000, 237,000 jobs were created under barack obama. march, 2017, 50,000 under trump. march, 2016, 225,000 jobs created under barack obama. april, 2017, 207,000. barack obama was a little down that month, 153,000 jobs.
145,000 under trump. 43,000. en june, 2017, 210,000 under donald trump. 297,000 jobs under barack obama. july, 2017. we're getting more recent. under trump, now he's been in office a little longer, 138,000. what was it under barack obama? jobs. double. august of this year, just a few months ago, 169,000. under donald trump. 176,000. and last month, we had hurricanes. i'll give the majority leader that. we lost 33,000 jobs. under barack obama, same month a year ago, 249,000 jobs
created. as a matter of fact, under rack obama, we created 11,773,000 jobs. under george w. bush, two million -- excuse me -- loss under george bush, private sector jobs, a loss after the 01 and 2003 tax cuts, lost 1,159,000 jobs. the last 12 months of the george bush presidency. we were in charge the last two years, couldn't chaming the tax policy, lost 4,568,000 jobs. i've done a little thing for 68 years. over 68 years we had 36 years of
republican presidents and 3 ears of democratic presidents. under republican presidents from truman to obama, there were 35,448,000 jobs created, mr. leader. der democrats in 32 years, 62,669,000 jobs. i would like to go on to another subject because we could go on debating this all day but i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: when you talk about bill clinton you said what did he have? when he first came in he had democrats in the majority. all that growth happened because of the republican house and republican senate. that's when b we turned it around with john kasich as the budget chair. we had to send him welfare reform how many times? three times.
he vetoed it all the other times. mr. hoyer: you finally got it right. mr. mccarthy: there's another question you asked, i love to look at facts, when you don't want to look at the whole picture. ask, did the election matter to the american public sni heard a will the of pundits on the other side say, oh my god, president trump got elected, the market is going to crash. you know what? most everyone in america that invests for retirement, invests in the market. the president -- and president donald trump has given them all a tax raise because we set new records more than 60 times. that's because of the belief of what they think he could achieve. look what he's doing with regulation. unbelievable. the few headlines you didn't announce during obama when you were doing those jobs, you didn't say anything about nabisco loving the country or burger king. they domiciled someplace else.
and what was the answer that president obama would have when companies were leaving america because taxes were too high? we'll pass a law to say they can't. you know the difference that election has made? we just proposed the tax bill, companies are now coming to the oval office to say, we're coming back. and all that means is more jobs, more money for americans, and i understand, we're going to probably have a philosophical difference of agreement. i believe americans should keep more of what they earn. i know what you said a few weeks ago, my friend cast his vote in favor of a budget that calls for, and i quote, $3.9 trillion in revenue enhancements. you know who i think needs the revenue? the american public. that's why we doubled the standard deduction, that's for every american from day one, they'll get more in their check. small businesses, lower tax since 4 years. all that money that those companies were being pushed out,
going to come back. we can argue all you want about this but for 31 years we have had this argument. i think the american public is waiting for us to lead. i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, you noticed that he didn't talk about any statistics i mentioned about job creation under barack obama he didn't talk about the 62 million job crease ated in 32 years, as opposed to 35 million, just half what we did in less than four years than they had as novet united states. and what he didn't talk about , he said you know, we -- republicans were in charge of the congress the last six years of the clinton administration. that's right. what bill clinton said, let's save social security first. let's not cut out revenues we need to invest in education and the greth of our economy. they weren't for that but they couldn't do anything about it. and then guess what happened? they took the presidency.
they had the house and the senate. why couldn't you do what was done under bill clinton then when you controlled everything? i ask my republican friends, mr. speaker. why couldn't you, when you controlled every organ of government, do what you say was done under the clinton administration because you were in the minority? or you were in the majority and controlled things? why couldn't you do it when you controlled everything. why did you leave us with $4 -- with 4.8 million hemorrhaging jobs as you came out of office? and your economic program was still many place that you put in place in 2001 and 2003. an the deepest recession you and i have experienced in our lifetimes and i'm older than you are. you didn't answer that. you continue to talk about what's going to happen. i tell the story about the guy
who comes in, wants to be the left fielder for the nats and he says, i'm going to hit .350 next year. well, but you hit .260 last year. well, yeah, i know but this year i'm going to hit .350. and the other guy comes in and says i'd like to ethe same job. .324 .325 this year, i hit last year who do you think you hire? the whole point is, mr. leader, say to the speaker, is that performance counts. not just talk. not just promises. because i will tell you, mr. leader, i have been here a long time. and i heard the same language in 1981 from david stockman he now says it was baloney. i heard the same talk in 2001 and 2003. t didn't work out so well. so mr. speaker, i'm going to go on to another subject because we
need to go on to another subject but we need to have this debate because it is critical for my children and my grandchildren and my great grandchildren and for generations to come. as to whether this country is like we did it under clinton on a fiscally sustainable path where we balance budgets or whether we go back to deep deficits. he didn't respond, 189% increase in debt under ronald reagan. one person in america, mr. speaker, could stop spending. the president. he can veto spending bills. in my 37 years, we've never had a veto overridden of a president who vetoed a bill because we spent too much money. not once. in the 37 years i have been here. mr. speaker. but i want to go on to another subject. there ought to be -- that ought to be less controversial. which i think the majority of republicans and i think unanimously the democrats want to see us do what the president
apparently asked us to do. and that is protect the daca students. the daca doctors. daca teachers. we have a dream act that's been filed. every democrat supports it. we want that to come to the floor in this transparent, open process. and i talked to the majority leader about it. the president, contrary to speaker ryan's advice, rescinded the protections for the childhood arrivals. who arrived here through no fault of their own. and he said to the congress, it needs to be done in legislation. he didn't say it needs to be done in legislation with a lot of other things. the speaker said we're going to take one issue at a time. i won't bring out that quote but
the majority leader has heard me use it before. so i urge the majority leader, because i believe he does not want to send these mostly young people who don't know any other country but america who see themselves as americans, who have been educated in our schools, serving in our communities, positive participants in growing america like so many immigrants before them. a nation of immigrants. some of your -- send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. we should have the daca bill on the floor before we leave for this thanksgiving. mr. leader, i say this with respect to the export import bank, that a majority of your party would vote for that if it came to the floor. we got it to the floor and as i predicted, a majority of your members voted for it. i believe that very close to, if not, a majority of your party will vote for this and the
overwhelming numbers in this house will vote for that bill. i would urge my friend to bring it to the floor before we leave for the thanksgiving break on the 16th of november. i would urge that because we're going to have some very, very messy eight days after thanksgiving. with great work load on our desk. not the least of which is thousand deal with the sequester, how do -- how to deal with funding government for the balance of the year, what to do with flood insurance and so many other issues. not to mention our supplemental we need to do with respect to houston and florida and puerto rico and the virgin islands. so i urge my friend to work with us, to bring a -- to bring the dream act to the floor or bring your alternative. to the floor. but let us not leave these people that the president says he loves, that are positive
americans in everything but paper, who have been here almost all of their lives, some came at 2 or 3 and know no other country. let's bring a bill to the floor that we can end before we go on the thanksgiving break in a united way, we're going to be divided on the tax bill, we understand that, but in a united way on this. even rush limbaugh says we're not going to send these kids home. i would hope you could do that, mr. leader. i believe you have it in your heart to do it. i would hope we could do it. i yield to my friend. mr. mccar spi: -- mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. i respect the gentleman. we disagree philosophically at times. i listen to you when you speak. i did just hear you say right before, why couldn't you do it when you controlled everything?
i kind of ask my friend the same thing. when you controlled everything, the white house, the house, and the senate, you had a self-proclaimed master legislator as speaker. you had an opportunity. but i know this is a window. and i know president trump wants to get it done. that's why he put out things that he wants to see done as well. talked about chain migration. talked about border security. we have been meaning, the speaker and i just had a meeting yesterday with a number of members about this we would like to solve this problem overall. i think it's a place everybody can work together. to secure our border. work on the chain migration problem. and solve this problem for others. now i know there's a six-month time period here. i don't want to confuse issues because i'd like to focus on this issue as well. but i don't want to have the government shut do you think over an issue you and i know we both discuss things like that.
never think that's productive whatever we do. i look forward to continues -- continuing working with you to solve this issue. i yield back. mr. highway wrer: thank you, mr. leader. mr. speaker, let me remind the leader that we passed the dream act through the house of representatives. we brought it to the floor, had a voten it. i know you and the speaker said there was going to be a working task force on this issue. and it's been i think going on for almost a month but we haven't seen anything on the floor. mr. leader what i'm saying is that i think we agree on this issue. let us not confuse it with things on which we do not agree. don't hold hostage these 800,000 young people who are positive -- if they're not positive they wouldn't get in the dream act. they couldn't get into daca.
they had to be a sterling record. this is not a free pass to people. we agree on this. i may be wrong but it seems we agree. the president seems to agree. wouldn't it be as we have done in the past, some bipartisan things with and we thought that was good for the institution and good for me american people to see us work in a bipartisan fashion. i think we agree on this issue. some of the things you want to attach to it we're going to have disageements on. why don't we adapt and enact what we agree upon. by the way this has been pending for a long period of time. as opposed to your tax bill. i know you think we've had hearings on it but frankly that bill changed from tuesday to thursday. of last week. so we think your bill is a pretty new bill. we'd like to have hearings on it. nevertheless on daca, i think we have an agreement. if you bring it to the floor, i think it'll get a majority of the votes. significant majority. i think it'll get close to 300
if not over. so i would just urge my friend to see if he as the majority leader, i was majority leader as the gentleman knows, i could bring a bill to the floor or keep it off the floor. s that bill that ought to come to the floor. we ought to give peace of mind to these 00,000 folks and we ought to pass this bill. get the house an opportunity to work its will. the gentleman wants to say anything further? if not i yield back the balance of my time. . mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on monday, november 6, 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 entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. tenney: thank you, madam speaker, i rise to recognize new york. tle of 104 years old will be awarded the congressional gold medal for his service in civil air patrol. at a time in our nation history, frank dedicated himself to service at home. in 1944, frank joined the civil air patrol in new york. his unit was active and tasked ith finding c-47's that went
down in the northeast. frank taught classes arranging from navigation to meteorology three nights a week. uring world war ii, the patrol waffed for enemy submarines while conducting search and rescue missions. on veterans' day, i will have the honor of presenting him with the congressional gold medal. since 1776, 300 medals have been awarded. join me in thanking frank dolittle for their service and dedication to our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> permission to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> there's no question we need to reform our outdated tax code.
that's something we all agree on. we need to encourage growth and support our middle class. but the republican decision to approach taxes in an irresponsible way is not the way to go. i'm deeply concerned with the partisan plan rolled out by the republican leadership. it saddles future generations with trillions more in debt just to pay for tax cuts for the most fortunate americans. furthermore, restricting provisions relied upon by countless middle class families including the salt deduction and property tax deductions hurts working families. this is particularly true in states like illinois where one in three depend on the salt deduction. i hope my republican colleagues will open the discussion to bipartisan engagement. i remain ready and willing to sit down and work across the
aisle to achieve tax reform that will grow our economy and protect our seniors and help middle class families and secure our future. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> hoosier families deserve a pay raise and that's what president trump's tax plan is going to give them. mr. messer: more jobs, fair taxes and bigger paychecks for working hoosiers. the plan includes a provision i have been working on that would stop $7 billion in remondayable tax credits to illegal immigrants. this is a giant step in the right direction to protecting american taxpayers and american families. in the trump tax plan, these savings will help increase child tax credits for american
citizens by $600 each child. hoosiers get it. it's past time to address an immigration system that rewards people who come here illegally. no one should get a tax incentive to violate the law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. espaillat: i'm proud to recognize and congratulate an migrant advocate christina moreta. and she grew up undocumented and founded united we dream. christina has become a powerhouse champion for immigrant groups across the country by elevating the stories of dreamers and putting faces
and names to a discussion that was at times dismissive and dehumanizing. she changed the dialogue. her work has impacted the lives of young immigrants nationwide and she was recently selected as one of 24 mcarthur fellow winners worldwide in 2017. i congratulate her and applaud her decision to use grant money to help undocumented immigrants. now that we brace as a nation to give rich people a big tax writeoff that will put our country in jeopardy, a big gambling casino effort that has seen a failed attempt in the ast with trickle-down economy. [speaking spanish]
mr. espaillat: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentleman seek recognition? >> uzbekistan uzbekistan terrorist and his attack in new york city is why the united states should end the diversity visa lottery and i emphasize the word lot erie. under this 1990 program, the state department gives 50,000 visas each year to immigrants using a lottery system. getting into the united states is like playing bingo. it's a game of chance. we should accept the best and rightest and time to go to a merit-based visa system. stop the random system that allowed saipov to come in, a system that rolls the dice where foreigners win and americans
lose. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. >> this year marks the 75th anniversary of executive order 9066, which authorized the nternment of over 110r,000 japanese-americans on u.s. oil during world ii. our country will never undo this injustice or relieve the pain that was inflected upon our fellow americans. we must remember this dark period in our nation's history and ensure this dark shadow of bigotry and hate never occurs again. however sadly as we look around us, today we see that this divisiveness and bigotry persists far too much. we cannot give in to hate and
intolerance. we must confront it and defeat it with the light and love of the aloha spirit. we must learn from this dark stain in our past and vow never to repeat it again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. he gentleman is recognized >> wednesday, marked the one-month anniversary of the terrible shooting that happened in my town of las vegas as. doreen anderson was known for her kindness and her smile. doreen was a loving wife, mother, sister, aunt and friend who always went above and beyond . not only a dedicated mother to
her two daughters but known as a mother to her community. she loved hockey and was a treasurer of the cow bell true a nonprofit hockey organization that supported hockey at all levels. her friend described her as an all-around wonderful alaska an who had a heart of gold. i would like to extend my con doleances to family and friends. the city of las vegas and the whole country grieves with you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for onep minute and resize and extend. -- revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> again and again president trump has promised tax reform that would help the middle class and the president has broken
those promises. instead of helping america's middle class and the working poor, his proposals offer big breaks for millionaires and corporations and painful cuts for nearly everyone else. mr. tonko: the house republican plan rolled out yesterday rolls over the middle class. it cuts the estate tax. a tax that only affects a few thousand of the wealthiest american families while raising taxes on the lowest income bracket. this plan slashes commonsense deductions including those for medical bills, student loan interest and mortgage interest. my republican colleagues claim their plan would save people money but say nothing about the $1.5 trillion their plan would add to the deficit over the next 10 years, 12,000 worth of debt for each american household.
we deserve not just tax cuts for the wealthy and powerful and those connected. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any additional one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. aderholt of alabama for today and ms. jackson lee of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. king: it's my honor to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives and i have a couple of topics that i intend to take up and those folks who are watching and listening, i'm going to talk about the heartbeat bill and tax policy.
but there is an important issue before this congress i want to hear about before i take up this purpose. and i yield to the gentleman rom florida, mr. desantis. mr. desaulnier; thank you for your -- mr. desantis: cries church of america is removing amon meant honoring george washington. just made me think what is this worldcoming to? christ church is free to do but we can criticize. if we can't honor the father of our country, then we truly are drowning in a sea of knee-jerk political correctness. washington was one of the few truly great men, an american original without whom we would
not be standing here today as free people. i want to tick off a few things before i yield back to my colleague. his stewardship during the american revolution brought america victory that we had no right to win against the most powerful army on earth. he had a third of the country and against all odds, washington led our country to victory. having won, what does washington do? when you win a military victory at commanding general seizes power for himself and creates a society. that's not what washington did. he surrendered his sword to the continental congress and gave up power voluntarily because he wanted to establish a republic and went home to mount vernon and when word of his
relinquishment of power reached king george, he said, well, if that's true, then washington's the greatest man in the world. it's unheard of. in a poleion on his death bed, he had a lot of trials and tribulations, he said, they wanted me to be another washington and i couldn't do it. washington presided over the federal convention which created our constitution and had washington had not been able to lend his legitimacy to that constitution it's pretty clear the constitution would have never been ratified. he gets elected first president of the united states unanimously and you needed someone like washington's character and stature to be able to launch this new ship of state. if you had anybody else and there were many great founding fathers, may not have been able to launch it successfully.
i want to quote from a letter he wrote to the hebrew congregation at newport in 1790. he said it is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for happily, the government the united states which gives bigotry no sanction quire onls that they -- only that they declare themselves good citizens given it on all occasions their effectule support. those are words that i think ring as true today as in 1790. he establish a -- established a two-term limit. people thought he could have been president for life and he could have been. his entire career from surrendering his sword at the continental congress to the
two-term limit was dedicated to the notion that in a public, the government of laws -- that in a republic, the government of laws, not of men, this is indispensable. he was first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen. mr. speaker, i think you look back at history, you can obviously point to things that we don't necessarily like and i think it's fair to air that. but to simply move -- remove somebody's monument, somebody who truly exhibited greatness, i think is a direction this country that we do not want to go. i just thought it was important to stand up here and to say that the father of our country is somebody who all americans should hold in profound esteem because i don't think we would be sitting here on the floor of the house of representatives in the most powerful country on earth if washington had not existed. with that, i yield back.
mr. king: reclaiming my time, i thank the gentleman from florida for his presentation and certainly support and endorse every word i've heard here. i think about the leadership that george washington provided in a cup -- and a couple of things come to mind. one of them is, in my six trips into egypt, i've met with president el-sisi each of those time he finds himself in a position similar to where washington was in his first term, madam speaker. and that is now with a constitution that has a limitation of two four-year terms for the president of egypt and he was elected under that constitution, committed to accepting civil leadership of the military and that has been taking place and rebuilding the christian churches in egypt, establishing a parliament that reflects women as well as men and the religious diversity and allows for a lot more religious
freedom in egypt. he followed through on all of that but the real test will be if he if president sisi is re-elected in egypt when he's up for that re-election, when he give, that should happen and i hope it does, then i'm also looking, listening very closely to what would be his second inaugural address and in that second inaugural address i'm calling upon him to announce that the second term will be his last -- will be his last term in keeping with standards set by george washington. that's how you transition into a republican form of government that is a representative form of government a government of we the people. and i'd also reflect as i listen to mr. desantis speak about the greatness of george washington, and we understand that there's been, i think an erroneous reading of history, a misinterpretation of history, -- an effort to purge from
revise our american history to conform with what contemporary values are and so now toties pargee and expunge from -- expunge from history the statues the face the words, the leadership of people who, some of whom, were slave owners back in that time. washington, jefferson, a list of others all the way up the line. we fall prey to this weakness of wanting to judge our founding fathers and the people who went before us in each generation by the standards of this generation. and gentleman -- and yet we admire people like william wilber force and john adams who stood for years to battle against slavery and made moral arguments against slavery and we had people that were against slavery that owned slaves. if you were in virginia if you owed taxes york uh couldn't free your slaves. that was true for some of our
funding fathers that found themselves in that position. they couldn't legally free their slave bus they opposed slavery anyway they just couldn't pay their taxes. so that's a piece of history that isn't often discussed, madam speaker. i think we need to judge washington for what he did as father of our country and judge him within the context of the values that they had then. and we should remember that they tried to eliminate slavery when, in the founding documents of this country, they were not able to do so because they had enough representation in the south to prevent that and so we were then swept into, less than a century later, swept into a giant civil war which is still the bloodiest war we have been involved in in our 200-plus years of our history and that was a bloody war of brother fighting brother, north versus south, 600,000 americans, mostly white male christians, went to their graves to put an end to slavery.
that's how huge that contest was. and the argument needed to be won here, it was debated here in the u.s. house of representatives and in the united states senate. it went through the supreme court. and as i listen to the testimony of star parker, who testified this past wednesday morning on the heart beat bill, h.r. 490, a magnificentr is witness and i counter as a real leader in this country and good friend, she's an african-american who has had several abortions before she came to the conviction that she understood that life begins at the moment of conception and that human life is sacred in all of its forms. so now her voice is being heard. heard in this congress. heard across this land. she compared as an african-american, she compared slavery to the abortion issue today. and i look back on the slavery
era, the first half of the 19th century and i think, building up to the civil war, and i ask myself, looking back at my heritage, my predecessors, and the things that they believed in and passed on down to me, where i would i have been? where would i have been, madam speaker if i had been say, born in 1800? would i have had enough vision to step forward and oppose slavery in the same fashion that i oppose abortion today? i would hope i would have. i pray i would have. i would think that those same principles would apply as star parker drew that comparison that juxtaposition, in her testimony last wednesday before the constitution committee. and yet here we are today with a similar debate a similar argument before us. slavery was morally wrong. today i've never in my lifetime met someone who defended slavery. but there were many that defended slavery right here where i stand, madam speaker.
and across the rotunda in the united states senate where they stand. they defended it because it was a legacy of the culture and the civilization of their times. that was included within every civilization throughout the world. and every nation had to figure out how to throw off that yolk of slavery and -- that yoke of slavery and give all creatures created in god's image an equal opportunity and equal freed dom. it cost a lot of blood to put an end to that. 600,000. as a matter of fact, not that long ago, i was standing in the lincoln memorial. they call it the timple area. there around -- the temple area. there around the statue of lincoln in his chair in the lincoln memorial. i walk up there, every time i've walked up those steps i walked over to lincoln's left, my right as i face him and i read his second inaugural address. i don't have the text of it precisely in front of me but i will get the gist of it, madam
speaker. and there in his second inaugural address, the civil war is not over yet, we don't know how it's going to end. but he said, should this conflict come to pass, until each drop of blood that's drawn by the lash is repaid by one drawn by the sword so it is written that the word of the lord is true and right and just all together. now i stood there some time back and read that. sometimes you can read things fur, five, six, 10, 20 times before you see the wisdom in it. but it hit me as i stood there, a drop of blood drawn by the lash repaid by a drop of blood drawn by the sword. how many americans died in the civil war? 600,000. lincoln could not have known that. and i thought i knew how many
black africans had been brought to what is now the united states to be slaves, to be enslaved here. i thought i knew that number. i looked it up. and it's without much contention there's a consensus number out there, madam speaker, 600,000. 600,000 americans died to put an end to slayry. 600,000 africans were brought to what is now america to be slaves. lincoln could not have known either number he was couldn't have known those killed in action and those that died in the civil war. he couldn't have known that 600,000. he could not have known how many were brought to america. what is now america, to be slaved. a drop of blood drawn by the lash repaid by one drawn by the sword, so it is written, the word of the lord is true and right and just altogether. and it turns out to be 600,000 versus 600,000. those are prophetic words that
came from the mouth of abraham lincoln in his second inaugural address, madam speaker. it's chilling to think about how pressure yent they were. -- how preshent they were. impossible for lincoln to know but the instinct, the hand of god that guided him, the hand of providence that put those words in his mouth that day turned out to be true this day and i think of all that this nation went through to put an end to slavery -- slavery and all we're going through to put an to end abortion. and i look at the cases of roe v. wade and doe vs. bolton and a supreme court that one might say was leaning very strongly to an -- as an activist court and the string of decisions that brought them to roe v. wade and doe vs. bolton. i would take us back through that, madam speaker. in about, i've got to guess at the years here again, about 1964 or 1965 there was a case that came before the supreme court
called griswold v. connecticut. there, the state of connecticut, being a strong catholic state, had outlawed contraceptives in connecticut because that was also the position of the catholic church. and there was a cup that will decided to sue to be table purchase contraceptives. society made its way all the way to the supreme court and the supreme court looked into that and decided there's a right to privacy and the state of connecticut has no business interfering with the constitutional right to privacy that a married couple has in connecticut to purchase contraceptives. so they created this new right, this right to privacy that didn't exist in the constitution, still doesn't exist in the constitution. now there are those who will argue it exists in precedent and exists in case law and according stare decisi it cannot be changed we're stuck with this idea that the constitution includes a right to privacy. a right to privacy that applied to married couples who wanted to
buy contraceptives in the state of the connecticut. that's when the supreme court reached well beyond their bounds and need to stay within the guidelines of the constitution itself. so this right to privacy. and then there was a case, the eisenstadt case where the decision was that unmarried people had the same right to privacy as married people. they extended that right to privacy to unmarried people as well. and now everybody can buy contraceptives, everywhere, at any time and many other things included underneath that definition. roe v. wade team came together and decided these rights existed this right to privacy could be extrapolated into a right to abortion because this was all written in the emnations that are up there and to explain that, those are in the shadows of. if you look at the clouds during let's say a semicloudy day and you see that little shadow along
the edge of the cloud you can't quite see the other side of the cloud you see that fringe along the edge. some place in there, those black robed jurists could see constitutional rights that they couldn't actually find in the text of the constitution, that they couldn't quite find in griswold, couldn't quite find in eisenstadt but wrote it into row vfert wade and doe v. bolton. and decided we're going to guarantee this right to have an abortion as long as the baby is not viable. the viability is a mushy decision. the court has thrown legislation back at us because they thought our definitions were too mushy. and so this viability decision, and then you have the doe versus bolton case and there, they write in the exceptions, the exceptions that exist, anything
that might affect the life or health of the mother and the health of the mother can be determined to be the physical and mental health or the fa millial health. hen you couple those two cases together and you respect supreme court decisions, then it said abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever, whether it's a physical reason, a mental health reason or a family issue, anything, an inconvenience and we ended up with abortion on demand for everyone. and at that time, the court could not have seen that we would be having partial birth abortions in this country into the 24th week and beyond. terrible s such a process. this congress wrote legislation
to ban partial birth abortion. it was defined. it was outlawed by this congress. it was litigated all the way to the supreme court, as we would know. here it was arrived unconstitutional for congress to ban this partial birth abortion, of bringing a baby to birth and one inch before that baby could fill its lungs with american air and scream for its own mercy, it would kill the baby while it struggled and squirmed and collapse the skull. that's the ghastly process and went on over and over again and the court found it to be unconstitutional for congress to ban or any state to ban that ghastly process. so we went back to work in this congress and the judiciary committee and under the
leadership of steve chabot of ohio, we held hearing after hearing after hearing and established -- wrote a definition for partial birth abortion that was precise so the ourt -- we wrote a precise definition and we held hearings that determined that a partial birth abortion is never medley necessary. and we outlawed it again. then it went through the litigation process. and our statute that banned partial birth abortion that came from we the people was shut down in three circuits and appealed to the supreme court and survived. even they couldn't bear the thought of what was going on in this country. it was too stark, too ghastly, too gruesome. and here we are today, this
house of representatives having passed legislation that bans abortion if the baby can feel pain at 20 weeks. it was a true and right and just thing for this congress, this house of representatives to do all together, madam speaker. and we have sent that bill over to the united states senate. and that bill has a little combit of eggness in it because we are saying 20 weeks. we would like to identify the time that the baby can feel pain. but it screams at our conscience that a baby can be killed in the womb who us struggling for its own survival, that if it could fill its own lungs, it would scream for its own mercy and fights to get away from abortionist tools. the pain-capable that we sent to the united states senate and
sits on mitch mcconnell's desk unless there is a democrat that agrees with us. it was bipartisan here in the house of representatives and i thank the democrats who joined us in the pro-life movement but it has diminished significantly. i won't use the name of the member, but a democrat member who is a pro-life member who i have served with over a decade, i said can you sign on to my heartbeat bill, are you ready to do that? he said not yet, which left the door open for well, maybe. i said how many democrats do you think we can get to sign onto the heartbeat bill that bans abortion from the time a heartbeat is detected. he said without hesitation, two. which i think meant him and one
other. i said how many votes among democrats when you came here roughly 10 years ago, how many pro-life votes, his answer without hesitation. 60 democrats would put up a pro--life vote. today two, maybe three. i hope and pray it's more than that. but that i think tells us something about how polarized the political arena is in this house of representatives in the united states senate and explains why tom perez the head of the d.n.c. can say there is people in pro--life the democratic party. we need to save the lives. and that is what h.r. 490, the heartbeat protection act that we held a hearing on.
the testimony was stellar that came out of the panelists that were there. david delivered the constitutional arguments in the question and answer. nd we heard from dr. kathy altman who is an abortionist. and she also had an abortion herself and has delivered a baby girl herself so she is a mother and abortionist and she said i realize when i see the young people -- when i meet the young people whom i delivered, she had a dual purpose, bring babies into the world and protect their lives with the technology on this hand but over on this hand, kill them. and the dichotomy hit her after she delivered her own daughter and she went back to work. and her hands were still doing
what they had been doing. and her conscience stopped this ghastly practice of abortion and now committed a significant portion of her life to putting an end to this. but she said she realized when she met young people, the joy she helped bring them into the world. but at the same time, she understood there were a lot of young people that are not here because she aborted them. nd so it always tore her conscience that way. in all of our discussions, she said, if i was going to abort the baby, i always referred to it when i spoke with the mother as a fetus. but if we were going to deliver the baby and give this baby a chance at life, i always referred to it as a baby. and i think that explains to us
the difference in the disagreements we have here in the house of representatives they support ally abortion with exceptions and hopefully they will be converted. they say fetus, we say baby. god knows it's a baby. god knows that it's a unique human being from the moment of conception. nd what we can't do yet medley precisely tell the mother the moment of conception. but i would be focusing on that moment. but what we do have now with ultrasourned, we have the ability to identify the heartbeat in that baby. the heartbeat protection act is require the would be
a boringsist to check for a heartbeat before they continue with an abortion, they have to maintain records, check for heartbeat and if a heartbeat can be detected, the baby is protected, because we know that's life. and if an abortionist stops that beating heart, we know it has ended the life of that innocent baby. as we brought this legislation forward, we found out that there is something about that heartbeat that speaks to the conscience and heart of america, madam speaker. that we know that -- i'll say billboard after billboard, there must be thousands of america, many of them that are put up by knights of columbus that says abortion stops a beating heart.
we have seen many of these hundreds and hundreds of times and we associate the heartbeat with life. if there is a beating heart, we know there's life. if you stop that beating heart, you know that you have ended a human life. and the argument that a baby isn't viable, the supreme court in roe versus wade said we think that's maybe 28 weeks. but now that we have baby that survive at 22 weeks, a month and a half less than before. i recall a circumstance in 19 -- an ould be 1992 where i had individual that was part -- he was part of the administrative oversight on a construction project that i was on that fall. and he was gone for two weeks and i knew why. his wife had gone into labor and delivered a little baby boy
prematurely. this little baby boy was in the early part of the 20-some weeks and i'm not certain, earlier than 24 weeks, but certainly not 28. and went to the city and stayed in that hospital with this little boy for two weeks and didn't leave, stayed at his side and prayed for him and did all they could. and he was hooked up to all kinds of tuesday. when he came back to me he was relatively assured that this little boy would survive. he walked up to me and handed me a cigar and said it's a boy. wasn't handing out the first two weeks because he wasn't confident this boy was going to live, he handed me the cigar and i knew where he stood politically and i said to him, you'd do anything, we would do anything to save the life of any
little baby, any little boy or irl, do anything to save their lives. save the life of a baby. we will do everything -- spend $ 100,000, $500,000 to save that innocent little life and do everything we can do with the medical technology we have. spare no effort from doctors and nurses and hoping that this baby can be born and remain healthy and grow into a full human being. and he agreed with me 100%. said i agree with you, i gee with you and i'm so glad my little boy looks like he's going to be ok. i said then, are you going to go into the polls next month, october of 1992, are you going to vote for the man for president who will appoint justices to the supreme court
that are going to continue to enable abortion in america? and he looked at me and he called me a name that we can refer to by first letter of those three words. but he said it in such a word that it wasn't insulting to me but said instead, you have drilled a point home. now after these 30 some years, i ran into him in the grocery store after mass, we are both catholic and i hadn't talked to him in a long time and i asked him how that little boy was doing and he told me, he said you straightened me out back then. he asked if i remembered it. and of course i did. i said i remember it, but i did want to know how he is. so that's a composite of the conscience of the nation, madam speaker. and i think it tells us that we
ll haven't come to the realization of immorget of abortion, but america has come to the realizization of immorality of slavery. we are making progress. and looking at this legislation, h.r. 490, we have a number of 69% of americans' support protecting any baby with a heartbeat. 69%. and that's 55% of democrats apport protecting a baby with heartbeat and this would save 90% of the lives of babies being aborted. i thank the people that brought us to this point. we are at 170 co-sponsors and next step is get a markup before the judiciary committee and my goal is to bring the heartbeat bill to the floor, january 19,
2018. that's the date of the march for on life here in this town and we need to bring that legislation to this floor. if we can pass it, and send to the to the -- send it to the senate, if the senate passes it i'm sure the president will sign it. we can end this carnage. to speak of the magnitude of the carnage of abortion. 63 million babies aborted since roe v. wade. i had a lady a democrat, say to me over here a couple of months ago, steve, why are you sor worried about this, we have abortions down to where they're below a million a year. only a million abortions a year? how can anyone say that is anything other than a bloody carnage and a loss of human
potential and the nile of gifts from god. 60 million babies aaborted since roe v. wade in 1973 and how many babies would be born to those who were aborted? how many of those little girls that were aborted in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's and early part of thismy lena, the earliest part of thismy lena, how many of those little girls would be having babies today and how many would they have? back of the envelope calculation tells me there's another 60 million babies missing because of the 60 million that have been aborted. and here we are in america and i'm listening to people argue and they will say, well, you know, there's work that americans won't do and we have a shortage of labor, so we have to go to some other culture, some other civilization and bring in hundreds of thousands or millions of people oto do work that americans won't do. i wonder if you asked those innocent little voices in heaven today if they wouldn't mind laying a few bricks or maybe cutting some grass or doing a
little bit of landscaping around or maybe cutting a little bit of -- these are all things i do by the way, even today if i get a chance. ask them if they wouldn't have liked to have a chance at the right to life. if they wouldn't have liked to have an opportunity to live, to love, to breathe air, to laugh. to have their own children. to enjoy the greatest country the world has ever seen. and it's all denied to them. kenied to 60 million of them. and it's denied to perhaps another 60 million who didn't vevpb the chance to be aborted because their future parents were killed in the womb. 60 million plus 60 million, 120 million, missing in this country today, no wonder we have a labor shortage. oh, here's another reason why we have a labor shortage, madam speaker. if you look at the numbers of, according to the department of labor statistics, and their website, there are 94.5 million americans who are not in the work force. they're old enough to work.
they're not in the work force. 94.5 million. if you add to that the seven-plus million on unemployment today, you get up to right at 102 million americans who potentially could be in the work force, they're not looking for work or they're on unemployment. and i'm listening to employers scream for more labor, more labor, more labor. and by the way, they're scream for more unskilled labor. i look on the same website assay, where are the highest levels of unemployment? in the lowe skill we was. we don't have a shortage of low-killed laborers. we have a shortage of employers who want to pay a competitive wage. call it 102 million americans who could be in this work force, we took that number and started chopping it down. how about those who are too old, can't ask them to work, dial that down a little bit. how about those who are physically disabled they can't work, dial that down. what would it be if we were going to mobilize our work force on the levels of say world war ii where at the of world war ii
we had the lowest unemployment in history, often this is misquoted, people want to point to some other you were in -- number, 1.2% was the unemployment rating at the end of the second world war. women went to work my mother did. of course my father was deployed. but if we mobilized on that level how many would be available to go into this work force? we think about 82 million americans are sitting there today, some of them on the couch on their front lawn, some riding around in a mercedes a but a lot of them could be going to work. everybody i mention sod far should be at work. contributing to our g.d.p. instead of just con sewelling. 82 million or so out of there out of the 10 million not in the work force and they say we have to bring in hundreds of thousands or millions or tens of millions of people to do this work in america. around our family, marilyn and i raised three sons. i started a business in 1975. started a family in 1975.
those three sons got an allowance. got paid for the work they did. and in addition the allowance was younger paid for the work they did came a little later. of those three sons they knew what they had to do. if one of those three son, by the way i'm talking about a third of our work force not in the work force, simply not in the work force but a third of the people that could be are sitting back on the sidelines. so let's just say around our operation there's work that has to be done. got to scoop the tracks out of the dozer, somebody has to change the oil, somebody's got to mow the lawn, somebody has to take care of other chores, they all got their assignment they did them. if one of those sons had said i'm not working. i'm going to soint the couch and watch the ballgame or sit on the porch and watch the rest of you work. i want to eat with the rest of you, i want to put my feet under the table. i want good food and i want my clothes all leaned, i want them ironed, ready to go. somebody else can clean my room too but i still want my allowance.
you all know how long that would last, if one of the siblings, a brother or sister said i'm not doing my work but give me my allowance and i still want the keys to the car, wouldn't last one day. at our house it goes complete he the other wayful you think that, this you get all the work, they get your allowance until you change your mind. it got fixed really quick in my household. in every household in america we don't tolerate a slacker taking up a room in the house demanding all the benefits of the work of the rest of the family. but we've got 102 million americans sitting there, many of them are being bribed not to work by welfare checks, we have over 0 different means tested federal welfare programs in the united states. over 70. some say 87 of them. no one has even memorized the list. so that should tell you no one understand house they interrelate with each other no one understands whether they are
disincentives or incentives for people to do the right thing and step forward and carry their share of the load. so why wouldn't we dial the with welfare down in america until the labor force magically shows up in the workplace? that's what happened with john smith. his experiment early on in america. worked exactly like that. he said that there were of all the royalty that was there that thought because they had blue blood that, an that's of course the expression of royalty that they didn't have to work and those commoners needsed to -- kneed to work for the rest of them, i'm not going to burn up the labor of these common people here so that a bunch of royalty can sit around with their feet up. that's a sum arization of the statement. so everybody had to work. and they had to -- no work, no eat policy. when you get to that policy a lot of people decide that working is getter than going hungry that doesn't mean we don't take care of the people that are needy. doesn't mean we eliminate the programs, it means maybe we need 10 million more american
workers. we can dial this welfare down, it is now a hammock. it used to be a safety net and this congress, for special interests has cranked up the level of the safety net to the level of the hammock and now 12 million americans, a good share of them are in that hammock. so we just crank it back down. we could dial it down in proportion to the amount of labor we need. everybody that gets off the hammock and goes to work, becomes a contributor. they grow our g.d.p., our gross domestic product and they pay taxes and they take themselves off the welfare rolls. so why wouldn't you do the two-fer end stead of going to some other country and bring people to do the work that don't speak our language, don't understand our culture and they don't embrace the american civilization in many cases and run down people in the bike paths in new york and they attack us at fort hood and the list goes on and on. orlando, florida. san bernardino. on and on. people that hate us. as louie gohmert often says, we
don't have to pay people to hate us, they'll hate us for free. we've got people on welfare who hate us, we don't have to pay them either. i want to applaud kevin brady, chairman of the ways and means committee and thank him for the very, very diligent work that he has done in order bring this tax policy as far as it is today and roll it out with the coordination they have with the support from the leadership within the house, the senate and the white house. that message has been clear. also, kevin mccarthy, our majority leader, stood here today and defended it and explained it, i think, very, very well. he's an articulate voice for our entire conference. he does an excellent job along with our speaker and our whip. by the way our whip, steve scalise is -- maybe he doesn't have all his moves back yet but his heart and his head are back as strong as ever.
his voice is as strong as ever. steve scalise has his mojo back, madam speaker. i'm awfully glad to see that. we need that and it's now -- it's a gift to us to have him. so what to we do with this need for labor and i ask the question a little earlier in a tax conference downstairs, this tax policy, the bill that was dropped yesterday, does it allow an employer to deduct as a business expense the wages and benefits that are paid to illegals that are in his employment? and the answer that i got was we didn't address that in the bill so whatever it is today is what it is. what it is today is, madam speaker, employers, every employer -- let me put it this way. thousands of employers, i'll say virtually every employer, that deducts the wages that are paid if they have illegals working
for them they go ton the schedule c like any other employer. let's just say if there's an employer there that pays $1 million out to illegals, that shows up in his schedule c as a business expense, wages. and those wages then are deducted as a business expense, of course you don't pay taxes on business expenses. i don't pay taxes on fuel. i don't pay taxes on parts. i don't pay taxes on the wages of our company tissue that our company pays in 42 years in the construction business or on the benefit packages that we have there. and -- but so employers are deducting wages and benefits paid to illegals. and that's supposed to be against the law. but they don't address that in this tax bill and the way the i.r.s. has addressed it is that, it says this, that according to section 126 -- 162-e of the internal revenue code it denies the ducks for, quote, illegal
payment, close quote. even though it deny december ducks under the statute for illegal payment the i.r.s. has interpreted this a little differently. it says here in this document even though it's illegal to employ unauthorized alien employees, the i.r.s. ruled that section 162-e doesn't apply to wages paid to those aliens, i call them alien, fetch the employer knowingly broke the law. there's a problem. with i.r.s. interpretation. but i also know they're not very likely to change that interpretation unless congress should crack them over the knuckles with some legislation. and i have for a number of congresses introduced legislation known as the new idea act. and today the new idea act is h.r. 176. and it does this. it clarifies. it amends 162-e of the code and it clarifies that wages and
benefits paid to illegals are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. it gives the employer safe harbor if he uses e-verify to verify employees. in other words if you hire people, you've got people on your payroll, run them through e-verify, we know about this program the judiciary program passed a mandatory e-verify bill out of the committee a couple of weeks ago. but you run them through e-verify. if you're the employer and they qualified to be legal to work in the united states, through the e-verify program, the i.r.s. cannot touch you with regard to hiring illegals. and so it's a safe harbor that we build into the bill. so tax, wages and benefits paid to employees are not deductible, the employer gets safe harbor if he uses e-verify and we require the i.r.s. to exchange information and build a working committee with the social
security administration and the department of homeland security so that the right hand, the left hand and the middle hand know what each other is doing. this is the federal government, after allful how can we have departments within this government working at cross-purposes with each other? we need to have the i.r.s.'s job should be collect taxes. they should not be allowing the deductions of wages an benefits paid to illegals. they're not legal to work in america how do you deduct it if you're buying illegal drugs, do you get to deduct your illegal drugs, if you pay off somebody to commit an ill ceil activity you get to deduct that. no. none of those cases, we don't allow deductions for illegal activity, that's partly what the legislation says but the inch r.s. has their practice and so by the way, before i wrote this bill i was looking around for what branch of government, what, excuse me, what department within any branch of government do the people respect/fear the
most? and one who has been audited thoroughly a number of times, i notice that the i.r.s. is the one that we respect the most, probably fear the most, and the last organization we want to show up at our door that's going to check to see if we're hiring illegals. . we don't accelerate any audits. the i.r.s. would show up to do a normal you hadity under the normal terms of identifying the businesses they would normally audit and they would run the social security numbers and identifying information off the i-9 forms that have been required send sins 1986, punch them into evary file and verify all the employees could work legally in america, then, fine, no problem. d that employer only has those other taxes he has to worry about.
if it is kicked out they would have 72 hours to cure and to correct any records that might need to be corrected but otherwise the i.r.s. could say, ok, this $1 million you wrote off as a business expense is not a business expense. that goes back into the gross receipts and shows up at the bottom as next taxable income. we do the math and we break it down. what's the impact? the impact is if you have $10 an hour illegal and the audit says you can't deduct the $10 then the impact is you -- the employer would then be billed for interest and penalty and the tax liability that we calculated that i think around 35.5% or 36%. that turns your $10 an hour into about an $16 an hour illegal. if you have to pay $16 an hour, maybe you can actually high hire an american to do the work and not have one person
sneaking into america. it raises the cost. there's also a six-year statute of limitation. so nothing goes backwards. it would only be from -- there's no expo facto in this. it would be the date of enactment from that point forward there could be a six-year cumulative liability. the first year the bill would pass, hopefully in this package we have in front of us that's coming to us next week, from the first year the bill would pass you have one-year of liability. second -- say the i.r.s. doesn't audit you first year. second year now you got two years of liability. that risk cumulative -- accumulates for the period of six years that statute of limitations so each year the employer would see they had a contingent liability. if the i.r.s. shows up and audits they are going to go back at least four years, i am going to guess, maybe longer, and that means they are going to work to clean up their work force. they can do it incrementally. they can do it all at once.
no one wants to sit there with the six-year of statute of limitations hanging over their head. by the way, there is an article here that's written by the center for immigration studies dated august 31 of this year and it's titled "raise more than a quarter trillion dollars of tax revenue by ending tax subsidies for unauthorized employment of illegal aliens." and the bulk of this addresses my bill, h.r. 176, the new idea act, the new illegal deduction elimination act. and they go through the calculations here. i'll just touch some of them. this is data from harvard economist george borhaus and his research and he shows the workers in america, because wages have been suppressed by an oversupplied of unskilled and illegal laborers that american workers are suffering somewhere between $99 billion and $118 billion loss in annual wages because they haven't
gotten a raise in a long time. nobody gets a raise as long as there's cheaper labor down. between $99 billion and $118 approximately. that's the harvard economist george borhaus and that's the annual wages because of illegal immigration. then, if we go to the next page on this. it lays out the conditions. and we're seeing this. he says -- this is a number from the pew hispanic center in 2009. it says there are 8.3 million undocumented immigrants in the u.s. labor force. and they recently estimated that number is actually down to about eight million. doesn't say why. but if they estimated the median household income of unauthorized worker families to be approximately $36,000, one in 3/4 average worker per household. that's roughly -- it says applying median per worker earnings of $20,571.
they estimated that the earnings per worker estimate a year. 65 billion this is some of the magnitude of the money that's going out of our economy. also added to that roughly $60 billion are being wired out of america. so those that say, well, we really need these illegal workers because they stimulate our economy, they grow our economy, they're siphoning this off. they're holding down the wages for the working people of america to the tune of $100 billion a year. they are earning $165 billion a year and they're spending at least $-- they're sending at least $60 million of that south of the border, about half to mexico and other half to central, south america and the caribbean. and so awful these economic impacts, but we have c.i.s., center for immigration studies, drew this estimate that should my bill, the new idea act, h.r. 160, become law and the perfect place for it is in this tax
policy, that it would -- it would score they estimate it would score the number would be $24.5 billion a year. we do a 10-year estimate. year. ans $240 billion a a quarter of a trillion dollars point of order into our budget budget.pured into our we have some solutions here and i want to see those solutions become law. h.r. 160 is one of the unique tools that has been here for some time. it's thoroughly vetted. it's had a good number of co-sponsors over the past years. i knew barack obama would never sign it but donald trump will. it was on his website early on when he first launched his presidency to support for the new idea act was on his immigration policy that was posted then. i haven't checked it now in quite sometime. i have no doubt if we send a tax bill to donald trump's desk
with h.r. 160 it would score better. to a tune to quarter of a trillion dollars. it would put an end to the illegal work force of america. or deductibilities. and bring together the social security administration, department of homeland security and i.r.s. to exchange information so that if there's a social security number that's overused, they need to tell the d.h.s. and they need to tell the i.r.s. the i.r.s. comes up with employers that are hiring illegals and they will, they need to tell the department of homeland security so i.c.e. can come in and enforce the law. and so each one of these agencies needs to cooperate with each other, and this way we open up jobs for american workers and we give the american workers a raise. now, what could be better than giving the american workers a raise and giving the american workers a tax cut all at the same time while we nearly guarantee an economic growth cycle for the next decade of an
average of over 3% per quarter? we can do that. it's all sitting here in front of us, and my hope, my prayer and my effort is we can all work together to reach all of those goals. with that, madam speaker, i better look -- with that, madam speaker, i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. and it's certainly an honor and pleasure to follow my dear friend from iowa with whom i got to share a little time last weekend and be out in god's nature and just enjoy the best
iowa has to offer. and steve king is one of those best things. we have heard a great deal out the new york terrorist although i believe the governor cuomo told us there was no terrorist ties initially before he had any time to know, really, but that seems to be kind of the way most mayors where these terrorist attacks occur or spawn, they immediately declare this -- it's not terrorists, no terrorist ties and lo and behold we find out eventually there certainly are. one of the problems that's been created during the last eight little bit during
the last part of the bush administration, the development, the discussion of , untering violent extremism but i do want to touch on omething about the diversity visa lottery program. my first year in congress in 2005, we eliminated the diversity visa lottery program, at least voted in the house to eliminate it but the senate would not take it up. wouldn't take it up. we had republican majority in the house and senate, and the senate wouldn't take it up. then in november, 2006, we lost the majority in both houses and, of course, the democratic majority in both houses loved
the diversity visa lottery program. in fact, have a floor speech from senator chuck schumer where he extols the virtues of the diversity visa lottery program. here some highlights. senator schumer said, this is may 24, 2006, as a member of the house, i helped create this program with my colleague, senator kennedy, created it in the senate in 1990. he said in fact, my city of new york has dramatically benefited from this program and diverse countries such as poland, ireland and nigeria have had large numbers of immigrants to be able to come set roots and help set diversity of new york and of america. and so this is an excellent program. nobody has said it has done a
bad job. those were his comments in 2006. well, i'm here to say it has done a bad job. so now nobody can say that obody has said it has done a bad job because i am saying it has done a bad job. no matter how noble the original idea was, you should never trust the country security to a lottery. that is insanity. there was a speech back in 2006 , then congressman schumer, now senator schumer said, i think -- actually he was senator in 2006, but senator schumer said, i think america should admit many more of those people, but not at the expense of the small successful program that guarantees other countries such as ireland, poland, nigeria
that are unable to have immigrants come in for family reasons can get to come into this country. senator schumer also said about the diversity visa lottery program, one of the great things about america is, again, we allow people from all over the world to come here so i plead with my colleagues, keep the diversity visa program. he said, as i ride my bike around new york city on the weekends i see what immigrants do for america. this program has dramatically helped neighborhoods such as woodlawn and green point have been revitalized by new irish and polish immigrants. neighborhoods such as east flat bush and harlem have been revitalized by west african immigrants. we don't have to stop this program. insanity to it's trust a national security to a
lottery, and that's what the diversity visa lottery program does. we've had terrorists -- and we've known it for a number of years -- we've had terrorists that have been getting their names into the lottery so that hopefully they can win the lottery and get to come to america to kill americans. . and i understand that there was a stepped-up effort in the last couple of years to vet people a little better. then e trouble is, as director of the f.b.i. comey testified before our judiciary committee, we've got nothing to vet these people against. so many of them. from syria, from yemen. you know, he said, in iraq we had all of the government records. and it ourns out even with all
the government records they let in two terrorists. we had fingerprints of theirs on i.e.d. that's killed americans. -- that killed americans -- i.e.d.'s that killed americans. and they let them in and eventually realize they had made a mistake. so they said, we're going to step up our vetting after they realized they'd admitted known terrorists into the united states, that created i.e.d.'s to kill and maim americans. but, they could say we were stepping up the vetting program. but when there is no information -- this is what comey said. with iraq we had the government records, we had fingerprints. we took fingerprints off i.e.d.'s. syria, yemen we got nothing. the government there doesn't give us their records. we have nothing to work from. and in syria for a while, isis had taken over one of the printing facilities where they could print the passports. so we had no information to work from.
we didn't know what was true and what wasn't. so once again, we were trusting our national security and the lives of americans to a fatal game of russian roulette. but it was from the middle east. it was from yuse beck stan. it was from -- uzbekistan. it was from places where people had been radicalized and i've got the numbers here. in fact, let's see, diversity visa program statistics. s a i understand the -- as i understand the new york terrorist, the isis supporter, that killed eight people, , we have many others - in 2011 we have 5,091 from yuse beck stan. there were -- uzbekistan. there were none from poland.
in 2010 there were certainly none from ireland. 800 from 012 4 had, -- 4,800 from uzbekistan. and we had 4,453 from iran. and for those that are not keeping track, iran, iranian government has not given us information that we can count on about people in iran who want to come to america. nd we know iran is the largest national supporter of terrorism in the world. we don't have much of anything o vet these people on. but, you know, senator schumer says it's a great program. nobody said anything against it. as he rides his bicycle around. fortunately he wasn't riding his bicycle around in front of the
terrorist that was allowed in on the program he thinks was so grand. and i'm frankly grateful he was not on his bicycle in front of that terrorist killer, that his program let in. 2013, uzbekistan, we had 5,101 come in from uzbekistan. again, poland -- oh, poland we did have 2,038 come from poland that year. 2014, another 6,027 that we could not adequately vet coming from iran. some of them we could, with relatives. but many of those people simply could not be vetted. we don't know if they were sent here by the iranian government to kill americans or not. from have another 4,992 iran, uzbekistan we had another
4,36. -- 4,368. so we don't have the numbers from 2016 yet, unfortunately. but hopefully that gives some idea of what we're dealing with. e also need to understand that when government officials tell us, you know, we had no indication this guy was a terrorist. and there were even people from the government that were saying, gee, you know, the feds, this was not a known person, this new york terrorist, not a nobody person to the federal authorities. well, it turns out in 2015 they interviewed him. he had terrorist ties. but the thing people need to understand was that, and i've , i'veaying this for years grilled director mueller on this issue. contacted by one media outlet
says, you know, why are you just bringing this up now, about the purge of training materials? my goodness, i've been talking about this for years. i've been made fun of about this for years. but i've been right about it for years. michele bachmann and i should not have been classified, what they took out of the f.b.i. materials. but they classified it so we couldn't show america how stupid some of their purging was. how senseless, how we were, as some of our agents told me, we are blinding ourselves of the ability to see our enemy. so when i grill mueller some years ago -- grilled mueller some years ago, over the fact that they got a heads-up twice that the older tsarnaev brother was radicalized, he was a terrorist, he was a threat to american lives, they didn't do anything, the c.i.a., they didn't do anything. f.b.i. finally sent some agent
or agents out. they interviewed the older starr . but they -- tsarnaev. but they didn't know what to ask. they don't know what the signs are of someone who is radicalized because they have had beat down their throats for so long, and this was the obama administration, they had the f.b.i.'s guiding principles, the touchstone document on training. and this was the document that the f.b.i. used to say, oh, no, we got to be politically correct. we can't teach people about how to find and spot a radical islamist. so there was a purge of f.b.i. training materials. there is a fantastic judicial watch special report, can be found on their website dated december 5 of 2013. u.s. government purges of law
enforcement training material deemed offensive to muslims. and who is complaining? well, the council on american islamic relations, the islamic society of north america, and they just happened to have known contacts who were named as co-conspirators supporting terrorism in the hole -- holy land foundation prosecution. and what did mueller's f.b.i. do under mueller's specific direction? they created an outreach program. they called them their community outreach partner for these people who judges said, no, there's plenty of evidence to show that these people have ties supporting terrorism. no, we're not going to eliminate their names. the dallas federal court said that. the fifth circuit court of appeals in new orleans said that. it didn't make it to the supreme court. but two courts said, yeah,
there's plenty of evidence, plenty of ties here, evidence of heir ties to known terrorists. so, it wasn't until 2008, after years of having this evidence, that director mueller decided, you know what, he sent a kind of apologetic letter to cair, council on american islamic relation, saying, you know, we better suspend our community partnership for a while. but it's just unbelievable. but it was the political correctness during the obama administration that has gotten people killed. because they purged our training material and god bless kim jensen, f.b.i. agent. he prepared 700-page training materials that mueller ordered destroyed. somebody needed to study that material before they went out
and talked to tsarnaev. and if they had, they would have recognized this guy has probably radicalized, and we better be on the alert. and they could have saved lives at the boston marathon. if mule heir not prevented them -- mueller had not prevented them from knowing how to do their job. and he's special counsel. and why -- by the way, why, madam speaker, do you think that former director of the f.b.i., that plinded the f.b.i. of their ability -- blind the f.b.i. of their ability to see terrorists, why do we think he came out with the indictments exactly when he did? well, i can tell you why. because he's as easy to read as anybody in the world. he came out with those indictments when he did because he had people starting to call for his resignation, starting to demand that he be removed, demanding that he recuse
himself. and even the "wall street journal," that's been very sympathetic, they pointed out it was time for him to go. and what does dough? immediately comes out with indictment -- does he do? immediately comes out with indictments to show, no, you can't demand that i go i'm too relevant. and you look at those indictments, if those -- and i'm for punishing anybody that's committed a crime, but there was no need for a special counsel to come up with what he did. the f.b.i. could have done that. the department of justice could have done that. e didn't need mueller and 20 lawyers, all of these hillary clinton sink fants in there to come up with this. the d.o.j. could have done this. just a ridiculous couple of indictments to be spending all these millions of dollars for. but we also know that same kind comey ct occurred when
came to the hill and testified, there is no trace of evidence of collusion between president trump and the russians. well, mueller had to be puckering up because he knew, uh-oh, now there's testimony from the f.b.i. director that there's no basis for me to be special counsel. and to have hired all these people. wow. so the president would -- could be in line to fire me because now we have testimony from f.b.i. director with no basis for this investigation, shut her down, and so that night they leak out he's investigating president trump for obstruction of justice. excuse me. we all know what that so-called evidence was. and they'll never, ever get a conviction because it was not obstruction of justice.
obstruction of justice is when you do what comey and loretta lynch did to prevent a proper investigation and you make an agreement with potential defendants that if they'll just give you their laptops and let you look at them, you will destroy all that you find and you will never use any of that information to prosecute them. then you give them immunity from prosecution. that's not how you do it you're going to prosecute a case. no. you get them in a bind and then you tell them, here's the charges you're looking at, unless you come clean and identify the person above you with whom you are working and what they did. then you work up the chain to the big fish, which is how organized criminal organizations have been prosecuted over the years. and it would work in this. but director coupley was so --
comey was so busy figuring out how to explain how hillary clinton should not be prosecuted, though the evidence was basically for a slam dunk case of conviction, that he overlooked properly pursuing the case. we don't need director mueller we need him gone -- mueller, we need him gone, and we need a special prosecutor to get into this. because clearly, jeff sessions recused himself on anything involving hillary clinton and russia, then -- if we can't have rod rosenstein, for heaven's sake. now we know that he and mueller need to be involved in this special counsel situation because they both were engaged in the coverup of the initial russian investigation that revealed russia was trying to corner the market on uranium and they had to seal that because if they hadn't sealed that and covered up that evidence, then
-- and that investigation, then hillary clinton would not have been title of the bill hit the russian megamillions lottery by authorizing the sale of uranium to uranium one that ends up in russian hands. . and blint bill clinton wouldn't have gotten $500,000. he didn't hit the megamillions except the $145 million or so that went into the clinton foundation. mueller cannot possibly investigate this. he's in up to his eyeballs and so is rosen stein. they ought to do the decent thing and resign and let omebody that is not completely submerged in the original cover-up investigate this whole matter and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back. the chair would entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. gohmert: i do move we hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next for morning hour debate.
>> good morning, everybody. it's great to be here today at the international franchise association with so many small business leaders, and i can't think of a better place to have this than here in downtown los angeles. i look forward to visiting the various different business owners after the speech today. this morning the house ways and means committee released a bill that will dramatically cut taxes and reform our tax