tv U.S. House of Representatives 11092017 CSPAN November 9, 2017 10:44am-2:08pm EST
new to school in upstate york and the school was closed the first day of hunting season we werea rifle team and able to bring our rifles on the school bus when we lived out of town. you hunted on the way to school and whom and you could put it in or check it and no one in our school got-shot and and in re on school bus the skaochool rifles. i think it is respecting themselves or respecting the them.ple around they have no respect for life or teachers or anything. lack of discipline. there was a dress code. you had to have cuffs on the man pants and shirt had to have a collar, the dress will to be their knee and girls took sewing and made their graduatio were >> and we'll take you back to the house floor for votes. atte
exemption certain micro offerings of registration requirements and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on pass afpblgt bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 232, the nays are 188. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule 2, i present a privilege red port. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report a tite -- the title. the clerk: conference report to to accompany h.r. 2810, authorize military activities for the department of defense, and defense active toifs the department of energy to describe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: ordered to be printed.
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 elect niced. mr. highwayerer -- mr. hoyer: thank you and i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. mr. mccarthy: i ask that the house come to order. the speaker pro tempore: the house shall come to order. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and 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 for legislative business, votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business.
on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. the house will consider several items which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition they'll consider the conference report. this bipartisan agreement will first strengthen our military, give our men and women in uniform a 2.4% pay raise and ensure america's fighting forces have the resources they need to secure peace at home and abroad. i want to thank chairman thornberry and the entire house committee on armed services for their work on this. mr. speaker, the house should also look forward to voting on the most significant tax reform in over three decades, h.r. 1. the tax cut and jobs act sponsored by representative kevin brady. america is among the highest taxed nations in the developed world. americans pay more in taxes than we spend on housing, clothing,
and food combined. at our current tax code is almost 2,600 pages long with an additional 70,000 pages of forms and other regulations. that is just unacceptable. we want to see economic growth this -- in this country. instead of closed for business sign well, want to see now hiring signs. we want to double the standard the ducks. what does that mean? it means every american making the first $12,000 of income for an individual is tax-free. for a couple, that's $24,000 tax-free. we want to simplify the tax code so you can file in minutes instead of spending weeks on a form the size of a postcard. we want to bring back the trillions of dollars of american wealth that has force -- that is forced to sit overseas and come back to america and invest in america. that is what voting for the tax
cuts and jobs act will accomplish. and that is why i look forward to the house passing this critical bill without delay. lastly, additional legislative items are possible in the house if anything is added to our schedule i'll be sure to inform all members. with that, i want to thank my friend and yield back to him. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i'm going to have some specific questions about then tax bill, mr. leader, but before i do that, it is our understanding that substantial changes are being made in the tax bill that was put on the floor last thursday. a week ago. does the gentleman know whether that's accurate or not? mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i would not use the term substantial because as you know as we've gone through this process for quite some time we're all riding to the same number, $1.5
trillion. any bill, when it moves through regular order, where it gets introduced in committee, we have a markup as ways and means has done all week long, they will come toll final vote today and you ver amendments pass, will then see that bill posted, you will then see rules take it up next week and you'll see the bill on the floor just as any other regular order in the process. i i yield back. mr. hoyer: regular order is having hearings and witness, is it not? mr. mccarthy feather for the last three decades we have done that. i don't think the american people want to continue to wait. i know we go this time and again. i can quote you back the number of hearings. i can quote you back what people campaigned on and put out to the american public. what's most important that i can quote you is the lack of growth that has happened. how much people have to pay, the trillions of dollars sitting
overseas. what i have found time and again, and i know we've talked about this before, but just by the introduction of our bill, i was sitting in the oval office last week, a company called broadcomm, created in america, but because of our tax code forced them to leave america to try to be competitive. they looked at this bill, they told me a couple of days before. you realy believe this bill is going to pass? we will come back. when they come back that's $20 billion in revenue each year. they'll spend another $3 billion each year on r&d. then they'll spend $6 billion in manufacturing. we have had so many discussions about how to breng manufacturing jobs back, that's why i'm excited about this bill coming to the floor next week. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman, i dent share his enthusiasm for this bill which i think will be harmful, explode the debt and be a bait and switch on the middle class,
where they'll get a tax cut early and a tax increase later on. but is the gentleman aware, he talks about growth, that in the comparable nine months of 016 through the same months in 2017 under trump, is the gentleman aware that we're -- there were 326,000 more jobs created in 2016 than have been created in 2017 in those analogous months? yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm confused that you're not enthusiastic about this bill. i have read what some people on the other side have said about this bill. and i heard one phrase that you recently used about the middle class. i would just caution my friend in referring anything negative to the middle class with this bill because there were some on the other side of the aisle that made some comments. and like most things we say you get fact checked.
"the washington post" a few senators tried to claim this was poor for the middle class. you know what happened? she did not receive one pinocchio, or two, or even three pinocchios, she received four pinocchios on that statement, that's the most you can get. if i may, i wanted to do the research. i wanted to look, is this bill, tax bill, good for all of america and especially because i want you enthusiastic about it, i looked at the -- at maryland's fifth. . currently in the fifth of maryland congressional district, 47% of the filers in maryland take the standard deduction. so not only will they be better off, it will actually double and they will see their increase in their pay day one, january 1. another 11% have itemized
deductions. that's less than our new higher standard deduction, so they'll also save more money, not to mention the time and confusion won't have to itemize. at means before we even look at lowering tax rates, 58% of my friends' district is better off on day one. now, how about the medium family of four? a medium family of four in maryland's fifth congressional district earns $123,000. for the at lowering tax rates, 58% of my friends' district is better off on day one. 20% of those fa that don't itemize today, they will receive a tax cut of $5,000. for the 80% who are itemizing today, they will get on average $2,200 in a tax cut. but that's not the only people i'm worried about. how is the single mother who is earning $30,000 in your district? well, she will no longer have to pay any tax under this plan.
in fact, she will receive a refund of about $500 to $700. how about the small business, the entrepreneur, the factor of creating jobs? ok. the small business making about $400,000 in maryland's fifth district, that small business owner will see a savings of $19,000. so what i'm confused is how can't you be excited about this bill? in short, mr. speaker, under our plan i believe the people, not just in my friend's district, but all of america. let me state this, the average family of four earning $55,000 a year will not pay any tax. for so many days, so many years i have heard from the other side of the aisle, my friend, talking about the middle class. we have a bill that's on the floor that's going to help the middle class. the single mother not to pay any tax, get money back.
the medium family there getting $5,000 back. the small business getting 19. i don't know how much more we have to do to get you excited? next week you'll have the opportunity. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i want more, is the answer. why is the nfib, mr. speaker, against this bill if it's so good for small business? why is the aarp against this bill if it's so good for small business? hy is the peterson foundation, which is worried about the national debt. our republican friends, mr. speaker, since i have been here, have been talking about we got to balance the budget. the president said he's going to balance the budget in nine years. that was hooey. our republican friends said they are going to bat budget. they said in the price budget. ryan budgets. the budget deficit keeps getting bigger. they have been in charge of economic policy for a long
time. the fact of the matter is, mr. eaker, i've got a list of 50 groups that are against this bill because they think it hurts. both the debt and middle income people. the distribution according not to fact checkers but the joint committee on taxation. $1 trillion of the tax cuts go to business. $230 billion to individuals. and $170 billion on the states. essentially. that doesn't add up to the $1.7 or $1.8 trillion that has been computed to be the deficit created -- additional debt created by this bill. in fact, that's why this bill is being rewritten right now. i guarantee you. you can call me on this next week. the bill that was introduced last thursday will not look
like the bill that you consider on the floor. it won't. it won't because, first of all, the debt is a problem. for apparently some people. it's a big problem for me. we ought to pay for what we buy. that's what the chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. camp, did. a bill that was paid for. an honest bill that was paid for, as was the 1986 tax reform bill. it did not add to the debt. this adds an extraordinary amount to the debt. as a matter of fact, it adds in one fell swoop the debt that was created on the reagan administration, approximately $1.7 trillion. it's being rewritten now. my presumption is as we have done 49 times this year, that this bill will be presented under a closed rule.
in a transparent congress. where everybody's views are going to be considered. i would -- i stand here and say, you're not going to bring this bill to the floor with an open rule where amendments can be offered and people can discuss options. and we can see what the ramifications are to middle class taxpayers. joint committee on taxation of this ted out that figurele individuals are going to get a tax cut of which mr. yan talks about of $1,182 in typical family he refers to them. but that that figure will start to go down in 2019, will go down further in 2020. so that it is a bait and switch . get it up front but we'll take it away. in the ways and means committee one of the reasons, mr. speaker, i tell the majority leader, i'm not very
enthusiastic, is because in the ways and means committee they said, do we also do this for businesses? do we also do it for the estate tax? we also do it for the wealthy? to that question is -- no no. only the to that question is -- no no. only the middle income worker has their tax cut reduced over the next five years. ut not so business. we eliminate the student loan deduction. we eliminate the medical expense deduction so if you have a major medical expense you are going to loose under this bill.
elimination of the deduction for moving expenses if your employer wants you to go more than 50 miles from your home. eliminates the deduction for the adoption tax credit. that could be a credit of $13,570 per eligible child that you will lose. eliminates deduction for teachers that helps them purchase pencils, papers, rulers, other materials for students. it eliminates the deduction for dependent care assistance, a substantial challenge for many, many of our families in america. eliminates personal exemptions that americans currently -- which they can currently deduct for themselves, a spouse, and dependents that grows with the size of family. and if you have a large family, you lose under this bill. if you have one child, the majority leader may be right. children, t to two
three children, four children, with no deductions, you are going to lose under this bill. that's why i'm not very enthusiastic about it. i tell the leader, mr. speaker, and perhaps the changes will make me more enthusiastic. perhaps there will be a recognition that this is not the bill that is going to do what it is purported to do. next, mr. speaker, i want to go to one other issue -- i jackson lee to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i caution the gentleman on some of the things that he says because do i not want him to end up with any pinocchios. the gentleman knows my fondness for him. just today in the "washington post" we had a joint editorial about our trip down to puerto rico, virgin islands, and to florida, the keys. but the one thing do i want to say to the gentleman, i know you mentioned a few people at nfib, y beginning, whether they support the bill
or not. i'd say just stay tuned. when the gentleman talks about will there be nfib, changes in the ort bill, this is the process. when you go through committee, do you not want to have the committee to have input? so there will be some changes. substantially? no. i do also want to advise my good friend, maybe i changes in bill, you to clause 5-a of rule 21 of the house rules. that will tell you how a bill comes to the floor coming out of could refer ways and means when it de with taxes. i know the gentleman talks about debt. i know the gentleman brought up about teachers. that's a $250 tax credit. the only concern i have, it's only in washington that they could be opposed to a bill because they think we're eliminating a $250 tax deduction while we're giving omebody $12,000 more tax free. there's a lot more there going around. i think that is a much bigger gift. if you ask the american public what they wanted, i guarantee you which side they would pick. about debt. about debt.
i have great respect for you. just a few weeks ago you voted or a budget that called to raise taxes for $3.9 trillion. that same budget would also increase the deficit by $6.8 trillion. that's not what you said on the floor, that's what you did on the floor. over 10 years. and it assumed a $764 billion deficit in 2027. now, we had a budget raise taxes for $3.9 trillion. that same budget on our side, and a budget lays out the framework for the future. the republican budget resulted n $197 billion surplus in 20 27. and a $2.6 trillion in deficit over 10 years. so i am concerned about the budget and my votes show that. and i want to put us on a path where we balance. we had this debate just a couple weeks ago. in that debate set up the mechanism to go to tax. and the one thing i have
learned time and again, you and i have had this discussion, we got to protect the entitlements for the future, but we know that's what's going to break if we don't do something about it. but we have to grow the economy. and we have watched the history of america, every generation has improved on the generation before it. with 75% of americans believe this generation will not. why? the last 10 years. it's been our lowest growth and we have seen in decades. we have always averaged more than three but we didn't then. we have just gone through two quarters at 3%. we had five hurricanes. i watched the atlanta fed look at this and say we could be above four. you know what opportunities we have? so it just won't be the maryland fifth that is getting that money back or the small businesses that are hiring more ith that 19,000.
imagine what that family will do with that $5,000. they'll get to determine that. they'll buy more than just the pencil. they'll invest in their kids' future. so i think it is an opportunity for all of us to come together. put people before politics and let's make sure this bill goes out in a very strong vote. i yield back. imagine what that family will do with that $5,000. they'll get to mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i heard almost word for word the majority party intone that vision and prediction when we passed the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. lmost word for word. that economic policy stayed in place until 2009. why? because the republicans controlled the house, they controlled the senate, and they controlled the presidency. nd what did it bring us? an almost hoover-like depression. not quite.
not quite because when we came into office we i vest -- we invested in a declining economy o bring it back. mr. speaker, the majority leader didn't respond when i said the growth of jobs was better in 2016 under barack obama than it has been under rond reagan -- excuse me, under donald trump. we're going to have an opportunity to debate this bill but i will tell my friend when he says this is the process. the process is going to be that the chairman of the committee will come in with a major amendment to this bill that none of us on this side will have seen and the bill will be brought to the floor next week. my friend the majority leader, and i want to say something,
he's my friend and we do cooperate in a positive fashion. we disagree strongly on this issue. i'm against the creation of debt. he mentions the budget. ok. that's a fair point. but i've been pretty consistent throughout my career to join with the peterson foundation that says we have to get a handle on this debt. we have a growing economy, 4.1% unemployment. stock market going up. so what do we have here? an extraordinary stimulus bill. 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 trillion dollars of debt. presumably as the majority leader admits, to stimulate the economy. very frankly if democrats were doing this, we would be savaged by the other side.
but we'll debate this. we'll look forward to seing how the bill is going to be when it comes to the floor. hopefully we might get the manager's amendment or the, better said, the chairman's amendment, prior to its coming to the floor. i would hope we would have at least 48 or even 24 hours notice of what that amendment is going to look like. so the -- not only we, but the american people that will have no opportunity to come in and give their opinions, testify, but at least they will know what we're voting on. and we will try to make sure they know. one other issue i would like to speak about, mr. speaker, before we end and that is the request of the president of the united states -- request that the president of the united states made to us. he said that the order issued by
president obama dealing with childhood arrivals who came here as minors, not of their own volition, daca. deferred action for childhood arrivals. there were a number of republicans who had a press conference today and they said we ought to pass that bill before the end of this year. i urge the majority leader pass this bill by the end of next week, before the thanksgiving break. this, mr. speaker, i believe is an issue on which, as mr. barton said, one of the senior members on the republican side of the aisle, said, if it brought to the floor it would have over 300 votes. representative barton said that, not me. i said that last week. i'm glad mr. barton agrees with me. we need to take care of this issue at the request of the
president of the united states who said, i love these kids. he didn't follow that with, i'm not going to send them out of the country. what he said was, they were not protected in the proper way and ask the congress to take care of this. i have urged the majority leader, mr. speaker, for the last 2 1/2 month, two months, to bring this to the floor. i know that a task force has been appointed. i don't know that the task force has reached a conclusion. but i would urge the majority leader and speaker ryan who urged the president not to rescind the protection of these young people, he urged him not to rescind obama's order, but when he did, the president said, i'm going to do it, it wasn't done properly. it's the congress' responsibility. mr. leader, i would urge you to
bring to the floor the dream act which is the manifestation of the response to that, and there are other options as well. we understand that. but something ought to be brought to the floor so that these young people are not twisting in the wind through thanksgiving, through christmas, this is the country they know. this is the country in which they have been brought up. and when rush limbaugh says we're not going to send these kids home, i can't believe that any of us on this floor are going to vote to send these young people home. but we need legislation to pass to protect them. to give them the confidence. there's a wonderful editorial. i urge all of you to read it. bob gates, our former sec retear of defense, under both bush and obama, wrote an editorial about the thousands of essentially daca children who have served, young people, who have served in our armed forces. served valiantly.
as a matter of fact , he says the attrition rate is a lot less with daca protected individuals than it is with others. bob gates is right. we ought to act. president trump in this instance is right. it's our responsibility, we ought to act. fred upton said that today in a press conference. joe barton said that in a press conference. the gentleman from washington state who led the press conference said that. mr. leader, this is an issue i think on which we agree. tax bill is going to be an issue on which we in contention. let's give the american people another example, as we have in the past of course a place where we can work together, get something constructive and positive done for our country, and for these young people. i yield to my friend.
mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have put a task force together, i serve on that task force, we have met over half a dozen times. it's true when the president made the decision he made it based upon whether it was legal or not for an action the executive branch took. because courts said it was not. so it was rightfully so moved back into this body which is the legislative branch he gave us six months to get the job done. and that's what we're continuing to work on. i look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman to get this done and i believe we'll be able to. there's one point i do want to bring up that the gentleman made before. i do know he's concerned about. the gentleman knows if we just get 1% of growth in the g.d.p., that will add over $1 trillion of extra revenue. the atlanta fed is saying we're going to get one and a half. who know house high we could go, but i would never want to put a ceiling on america. i will always bet on america.
i just want to unshackle the things that hold us back. and you are correct you talked about, we now have the lowest unemployment in decades. the stock market hit this week the 58th time they broke a record since we had the election a year ago. and business confidence is at an all-time high. and most of that is happening because america has the anticipation of us passing the tax bill. that's why i think this is a moment that'll be significant in every memory. they'll look back on their vote next week as one of the most important votes they would ever take. what was the future you want to have for your children? what have the -- what was the opportunity you wanted to give them? did you put the rhetoric aside? did you look at the bill pace base odden constitutionality, did you look at the bill paced on your own constituents?
take your partisan hat off and when you look at that, at the end of the day, if it empowers your small business if it gives every american more money in their own pocket, if the projections are it's going to grow do what's right. do what's right for america and i believe at the end of the day, history will treat you well. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his remarks. i will say on this floor, the fact checkers check me, millions and million and millions of taxpayers -- middle class taxpayers will get a tax increase on this bill. check me. millions of people. and why do i say that? because the joint committee on taxation tells me that. other think groups tell me that. from the conservative side of the ledger.
so we'll argue this bill but i will repeat again i've heard that argument over and over and over again. i heard it in 1981, we exploded the debt. i heard it in 2001 and 2003 and we exploded the debt. and we had the deepest recession anybody on this floor who is sitting here now has experienced. and i hear it today. and the reason the pete peterson foundation is against this, they believe exploding the debt by ofther $1.5 trillion will be extraordinary detriment to our country, and i want to say to every member, mr. speaker, when you get up and say, i don't want to hurt my children, there may be people who get a tax cut under this bill. but i guarantee you the people who are getting a tax increase, in addition to the middle class i have just talked to, are the children.
they're going to have to pay off this debt. we will not pay it off. so if, when you speak on this floor and say it is a moral act to put our children more deeply into act if you believe that, you will not be able to vote for this bill. unless the gentleman wants to say something further, i yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, with veterans day approaching i want to recognize the life, service, and heroism of jack henley of hamilton, mt.
-- hamilton, mt. -- montana. r. gianforte: he led men through heavy fire and didn't lose a single man he twice reentered the field to save two men he earned a silver star an purr -- purple heart he re-enlisted in 1948, training troopers in korean war and continued to serve in the army reserve until 1984. during his 28 year of service he was awarded 18 medals and decorations. his name is included in the hall of valor here in washington, d.c. i'm proud to have him as a fellow mt.ian and i'm honored to recognize -- fellow montanan and i'm honored to recognize his life. may we always recognize his story and all of our nation's veterans. thank you, mr. speaker, with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition?
without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today in memory of 32-year-old darren drake of new milford, new jersey, whose promising life was cut short in last month's tragic and senseless act of isis-inspired lone wolf terror in man that the -- manhattan. he was one of our best and brightest a hardworking private manager at moody's, and lifelong jets fan , he earned more than three degrees from new jersey's universities. he was a committed publicer is vabt, serving as president of new milford's school board. he was beloved and it was intensely moving to see the new jersey community come together at his wake and funeral last week and this week. to his parents and everyone whose life he touched, i want to express my deepest condolences. darren's death sour profound loss and he packed more into his years than most do in a lifetime.
his life enriched our lives beyond measure and no act of terror will be able to diminish the bright and burning love he had for his home, my state, and our country. i will spend my days here fighting terrorism at home and abroad in darren's honor. may god rest his soul. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: tomorrow marks the 242nd birthday of the u.s. marine corps. in today's unpredictable world, the marines are as important as ever before. i'm proud to have a member of the marine corps serving as a legislative fellow in my washington office. paul camacho achieved the rank of staff sergeant from 2000 to 2008. served as a field artillery
cannoneer. at one point he was the youngest marine in the marine corps an achievement celebrated each year ring cake-cutting ceremonies ton the marine corps birthday. thank you to your service and thank you to all who have served in one of the most respected fighting forces in the world. mr. speaker, it was president ronald reagan who said, quote, some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world but the marines don't have that problem. end quote. happy birthday. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection. the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. >> mr. speaker, study after study has shown that illegal
voting is extraordinarily rare and voter fraud is almost nonexistent. instead of chasing after mythical claims of voter fraud, the federal government must address actual threats to our electoral system. it is imperative we protect the integrity of our elections, but the administration is interested uny corn, voter fraud cybersecurity, weakness and foreign medling. mr. payne: to protect the integrity of our elections, we must expand voting rights for all americans and must modernize our voting system. and we must appoint an independent commission to investigate foreign medling into the electoral system before the 2018 federal election. with that, i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman -- pennsylvania seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> today on veterans' day we salute those who defended our great nation and served in uniform. we say thank you for offering yourself and your services for he betterment of our nation. mr. fitzpatrick: you have served and sacrificed greatly to secure the freedom we enjoy here at home. you command our respect. you continue the greatest tradition and you are a role model tore younger generations of americans. to the tam list who have sacrificed, we say thank you. you provide the love and care
necessary for our men and women to continue their honorable work. our gratitude is enduring, our support for you steadfast. we have your back. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute -- the gentlelady seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to oppose the republican tax plan and to highlight another devastating proposal in it. the republican tax plan proposes to eliminate the medical expense deduction. eliminating this deduction could raise taxes on nearly nine million people including cancer patients and their families,
seniors and chronic health plans. currently people with high health care costs can deduct medical expenses that exceed 10% of their total income. if you are a retiree living in southern california suffering from m.s. and you live on $75,000 a year annual pension, you could write off 70,000 a year in medical expenses giving that person a tax bake of $20,000. removing the medical deduction would spell financial disaster. now half of those claiming the deduction have income below $50,000. think about how devastating losing this deduction will be. i can't stand by while my republican colleagues takes money from the sickest and neediest in order to give tax cuts to corporations and top 1% of earners. this is a bad bill.
with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> permission to address the house and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to salute all veterans on this day. as veterans you may forever and eternally take your line whether voluntary or drafted with use, vigor and bravery for your nation, your family and the soldier on your left or right. on this day, we bestow honor upon you. blause of the standard you have set, future generations will continue to serve with provided our american heritage and willing to uphold our as free
people and shall fight for freedom whatever the costs with dogged persistence and happy veterans day and may god lift you up and may he always bless these united states. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. >> let us strive to bind up our nation's wounds to care tore him that have borne the battle, his widow and his orphan. those words were by president lincoln in the second inaugural address where he set our nation's obligation to our veterans. on the eve of veterans day, i rise to honor our heroes, the men and women and who served our nation and remind us of our
responsibility to those our veterans. mr. panetta: in my district nearly 30,000 veterans live in that area, an area with military history to the many military installations, to the men and women who have served in our community and kept the security of our country safe. it has been service members and those families that not only served but stayed in our community who fulfilled that obligation. now we have a health care clinic . we have the central coast veterans cemetery and a transition center. on this veterans day, we not only want to thank our veterans but we recommit ourselves to those who serve us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to
address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today in honor of veterans day which is saturday, november 11. on this veterans day, i know you join me in honoring the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces. there is no greater sacrifice than to lay your life on the line for your family, friends, neighbors and country. we must remember the great debt that we owe our veterans and members of the armed services who fight to maintain our freedom. to all those who have lost loved ones to war, we join you in honoring their remarkable service. their courage is what makes the united states of america the greatest nation on earth. our veterans have sacrificed so much on our behalf. it's our duty to make sure their sacrifice ends wheng they come back home. i promise to fight for our veterans and active service
members. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: let's put rhetoric aside when it comes to the republican tax bill. this is a bill that gives tremendous tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires while it hits the middle class. it may look like they are getting a tax break but add on the deductions that they will to the be allowed to take, it's a negative for the middle class. the government is always accused of giving you something in one hand and taking it back in the other hand. a classic bathe and switch. and in my home state of new york which is a high-tax state people will no longer to deduct state and local taxes. so when you add it all up, what
does it do? higher taxes for the middle class, lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires like our president. a classic bait and switch. new york is a donor state. we give more murn to the federal government than we get back. we should be protecting the middle class and letting people who can afford to pay more, millionaires and billionaires to pay more, not the other way around. what happened to the fiscal responsibility of the republican party? this blows a hole in the deficit, $1.75 trillion over 10 years. >> i rise to seek permission to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i have been in the oil and gas business for many, many years and drilling business and been out to drilling rigs
offshore and platforms offshore and interests in several countries, but i must oppose any move towards seismic testing or offshore drilling in the eastern gulf of mexico and west coast of florida. our west coast of florida is highly developed with development. we can't tolerate the kinds of tank farms and infrastructure necessary to serve offshore rigs. it's not about the rigs. this is about boats going out to the many, many rigs off shore. this is a picture of work boats. this is what goes back and forth to offshore rigs every day. we don't have rooms for these thins in our bays or time to see these things going off our coast. that is a cable toer putting down moorings that these boats tie off on. we don't have room for those
moorings in our rivers and bays. i oppose to any move towards drilling off of southwest florida's coast. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman recognition? ek >> my colige from nevada seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. kiki -- i remember the life of jack beacon. jack traveled to the route 91 music festival with his wife
lori to celebrate their wedding anniversary. he shielded his wife from the gun tire. she said jack made her feel loved and he was a loving father to his two children and always had a smile on his face and was a kid at heart. jack was known as a hard worker who was willing to give someone a helping hand. he was the type of person who had given t-shirt off his back. his children's friend said jack was a role model to them both as a father figure and best friend. i would like to extend my condolences. the city of las vegas and state of nevada and the whole country grieve with you. i yield the remaining balance of time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom michigan seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent tore address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized
>> mr. speaker, as a nation, we find ourselves in seemingly uncertain times, instability in north korea and divisiveness on so many fronts. young men and women continue to step up to serve when their country needs them most. they serve our great nation willingly, honorably and without bias. in the 190's when an attack on american soil led us into the second world war, our men and women stood up to defend our nation. in the 1950's when our country faced the spread of communism in korea, our veterans were there. when the united states was brought into the war in vietnam knowing there would be no heroes steadfast.ur men and operation iraqi freedom and missions they have faced, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have defended our
nation. on this veterans day i submit to our men and women your service is not over. and your mission is not complete. now more than ever your country needs you. stand up. tell your story, the next generation needs to hear from you. we are forever grateful for your service. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, members of the house, the simple truth is, is that the rich are getting richer in degrees unparalleled in human history in this country. the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting crushed. now our republican colleagues offered a proposal to the congress of the united states to make it worse. the fact is under the republican tax bill, the upper 1% will be getting a $1.7 trillion tax
deduction. and at the same time, independent reports tell us the middle class will be getting millions of them, will be getting an increase in their taxes and we will be passing on $1.5 trillion in debt to our children and our children's children. mr. speaker, this tax bill is a scam. mr. nolan: it is traditional, old-fashioned, trickle down economics that has never worked, been the ruination of every great economy in every country in the world. we have to oppose it and stop them from succeeding in this tax scam. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? the gentleman from texas, i'm sorry. there's two of you. ok. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> before i go back to the great
state of texas today i want to say happy veteran days to our men and women who have sacrificed an served so bravely. i wanted to say from all those who i represent in west texas, thank you for giving up your day so that we could have our tomorrow. you represent the very best of our american values and we are the most powerful, the most prosperous, and most generous nation in the world. we are the most free nation in the history of the world because of you. god bless our veterans and god bless america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i too rise to salute our slet rans and to indicate -- to is a lite our veterans and indicate to -- to absolute our veterans and to end
-- to salute our veterans and to indicate that we are grateful to them, they get up every day, putting on the uniform unselfishly and standing in the gap. i think it is also important to note the many families who are also part of this freedom and let me acknowledge the 21.6 million brave men and women that are veterans of our nation's military service, 30,000 of them in the 18th congressional district. but i want to take a moment, and i'll be speaking about this tomorrow and on saturday, veterans day, about p.o.w.'s and m.i.a.'s. i want to salute congressman sam johnson of texas and senator john mccain of arizona. both of whom suffered injuries that you can even see now in the united states congress during their time as p.o.w. i honor them and i hold them in high esteem and to the families of those of the m.i.a.'s from all the wars, i want to say to them we continue to pray for your loved ones as a sponsor of
eight pieces of legislation and 35 pieces of legislation that i co-sponsored to make life for veterans better, today i salute you and say happy veterans day. god bless all of you, god bless this free nation, the united states of america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for ms. roybal-allard of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017 the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. and i just want to start out
echoing what my friend, congressman rick nolan, was saying. we should not be about the rich getting richer. and there are different strategies to try to accomplish fairness in a free country. if it's truly free, people are going to have to have the opportunity to fail as well as succeed. the only other alternative is the government kills any incentives to be more productive and just says we're going to flat line everybody across the board no matter how much you produce and we've seen over and over throughout history, that never works. income redistribution never works. you kill the incentives. and as i was told back in the summer of 1973, in an exchange program in the soviet union, by a bunch of farmers who were
sitting in the shade mid morning in the middle of the summer, i asked when, tried to use my best russian, when are you -- when do you work out in the field, i couldn't tell what was as a result kated -- cultivated, what wasn't, it all looked terrible. they all laughed. i thought maybe i translated something wrong. but one of the farmers in russian said i make the same number of rubles if i'm out there in the field or in the sun or here in the shade. so i'm here in the shade. that's why socialism doesn't work. so there have been many different strategies. that have been utilized throughout this nation's history and through the the history of the world. to try to create, sometimes it's not an effort to create fairness. in this country it's normally been, thank god. but under the obama dministration's efforts to redistribute income, it brought bout for the first time in our
1% of history the top our nation made 95% of the income. so i mean, i just was staggered. but that had happened under the obama administration and obviously that tells us that the strategy for encouraging success , financial success, was an abysmal failure under the eight years of commander in chief obama as he commanded over the economy. he made sure, i don't think it was intentional, but his efforts made sure that the very, very richest in the country became much, much, much richer.
and the rest of the country suffered. and those on food stamps skyrocketed to the highest level ever. ic over 50 million. we had 95 million americans for the first time in our history who got so tired of applying for jobs unsuccessfully they quit even applying. and so how does the obama administration respond? they responded by not counting those 95 million in the unemployed numbers because they were no longer looking for jobs. the economy -- it really hasn't recovered. people have been flat lined or less when adjusted for the little inflation we've had, so it's time to try something different. than the obama efforts that put 95% of the nation's income in
he top 1% pockets. we're already seing that change. i'm hoping that our efforts, especially in creating tax cuts will cause the economy to just skyrocket the way it did after he 30% tax cut kicked in under resident reagan by 1983. i do want to touch on something that came out in the last week. this article from "the hill." it says early comey memo accused clinton of gross negligence on emails. it turns out, we find out now, that f.b.i. director comey started drafting months before
hillary clinton was interviewed, months before discussion with sheryl mills and the other potential targets of the criminal investigation over the destruction of hillary clinton's emails, should have been obstruction of justice. that's not gross negligence when you tell somebody to go destroy your phone with a hammer and you've had them use bleach bit to take out everything in your phone or in your computer. that's not gross negligence. that's intentional obstruction of justice. when you know that there's subpoenas after the things you're destroying. but f.b.i. director comey decided to play politics instead of law and order. maybe that would make a good new series on television or netflix.
not "house of cards," but "house of injustice" where we play politics with justice instead of trying to do justice. trying to fulfill the oath to pursue justice. but in any event he had fwrose negligence as the term he attributed to hillary clinton in that first draft. but apparently when he realized that gross negligence would be a crime the eliminated what would clearly have been a complete accusation of a crime having been committed by hillary clinton. so interesting, just more information coming out. about why james comey should not -- well he should be considered someone worthy of investigation himself. he admitted to leaking
information in order to manipulate the justice department. not by being upfront and recommending a special counsel. oh, no. he wanted to create a special counsel just like he did when he told john ashcroft to recuse himself, ashcroft obviously not knowing what comey had in mind, but that he was going to appoint his child's godfather to be special counsel, patrick fitzgerald, and let him go on a witch hunt trying to get karl rove or vice president chaney, unsuccessful, so he manipulates and creates a case against scooter libby so he could at least have a scout to show for the millions and millions of dollars that were wasted. but, from comey's standpoint, his child's godfather made a lot of money and comey got to lash
out at the bush administration, so probably from their standpoint it worked out real well. but it also points to the fact that since james comey has been involved up to his eyeballs in what's going on as f.b.i. director, whoever were to be special counsel, if anyone, they would need to be someone who was not close friends with james comey. and as comey apparently pointed out to the washingtonian when they were doing a big article on him back in 2013, basically, bob mueller if the world were on fire, bob mueller would be the one that would be standing there with him to defend him at the end. so clearly mueller, if he were interested in ethics, would have refused, and actually interested in following the law himself, he would have refused to be appointed special counsel but we now know that since mueller as
f.b.i. director was involved in the investigation of russia's efforts to gain united states uranium to try to corner the market on uranium, and they were apparently committing crimes in their efforts, paying bribes, whatever is necessary, to try to acquire united states uranium, as the investigation went on for three or four years, undercover person, well, mueller and u.s. attorney in charge of the investigation named rod rosenstein, the guy that appointed mueller to be special counsel, they ended up ensuring that the records of that long-term investigation would be sealed and they even went to court and got a court order to seal it and whose name was on the motion to seal those
documents? rod rosenstein he did have a deputy sign on his behalf but rod rosenstmbings tein was -- was saling nstein records so no one would know they were trying to acquire u.s. uranium because if people saw the f.b.i. and justice department knew that russia was committing crimes, paying bribes, trying to acquire u.s. uranium then they would have been complicit with the effort to approve the sale of uranium to a country that was committing crimes to get it. and if they had not approved that it's doubtful that the clintons would have struck the mega millions russian lottery the way they did. so the last two people in
the country that should have been involved in an investigation into potential rush and collusion, should be a person named rod rosenstein and another person named robert mueller. i have great respect for his valiant service to our country in vietnam. this isn't about vietnam. this is about manipulating the justice system. ongoing t ceiling an investigation that showed crimes being committed to put our national security at risk and not speaking up against the sale of 25% or so of america's uranium to an entity that would provide it to russia.
we now know that uranium did not stay in the united states, as some have said. well, i mean, when you're going to sell uranium to people that have been paying bribes, acting illegally, is it any surprise if they're willing to violate the law, that they would be willing to violate the terms of an agreement or other laws regarding that uranium? so i'm still hoping and yes i believe in prayer. and i'm hoping and prayer that justice will be done, that those who should not be investigating will step out of the picture or be forced to step out of the picture. and we can have a fair investigation into potential crimes. another very important piece of
information that's come out about the shooter in the sutherland springs basically this cry for been more gun control. and that's immediately after we screamingcal islamist -- it is t on fox praise be to allah. if you look to praise be to god or you could look on top of the washington monument where american leaders had insubscriptions on all four sides of the metal capstone on
top of the washington monument, but on the side facing the u.s. capitol, they had incribed in , meaning praise be to god in latin. and the reason they had praise be to god facing the capitol is that this is east of the washington monument and what they aspired to have is the rst raise of god's son every morning, striking praise be to god, enlightening those words before anything else in our nation's capitol was lit. praise be to god and the rest of the capital city would be lit. and that's why it's there. it turns out that the new york killer, the radical islamist, he me to the u.s. under the
diversity visa program that was started because apparently some senators and a few democratic house members believed that we were having too many hispanics coming in and not enough irish come in. so immigrants like irish who were not being properly represented in the numbers could have a chance to come into the u.s. the way so many hispanics were. well, i didn't think we cared about national origin that we needed a special program to give some other countries a chance, that hispanic countries would not have. but apparently some thought that was going to be appropriate. it's high time to get rid of the program. we have known for years, terrorists have been trying to win the lottery and terrorists
have won the lottery. and my friend, chairman of the judiciary committee, bob goodlatte had a terrific op ed in "the hill." republicans in the house, we visa to end the diversity lottery in 2005 and the senator wouldn't take it up. senator schumer helped start the program. democrats then had the majority for the next four years after 2006. they certainly weren't going to end the diversity visa program and then in 2012 in the session after we got the majority back, we voted again to end the lottery, the visa lottery program in 2012.
but the senate again wouldn't take it up. in the last session, we didn't get it voted out, but i'm grateful to the chairman of the judiciary, bob goodlatte, for pushing, as he has and i'm hoping we can get that bill to the floor that will allow us to end it. in that op ed, chairman demrat says the visa lottery which was enacted 10 years prior to 9/11 is foolish in the age in which we live. those who wish us harm can easily engage in the statistical gamble with nothing to lose. the office of the inspector general, the state department has found that it poses significant national security risks. in fact, sigh positive, the new york city radical islamic terrorist is the fifth person who has been accused or convicted in connection with terrorism plots who have come here through the visa lottery.
another instance, an egyptian terrorist who killed two and wounded several others at los angeles international airport on july 4, 2002, was a lawful permanent resident who received his green card through the program, the diversity visa lottery program since his wife was a visa lottery winner. so this egyptian terrorist was a lottery winner or his wife was, and the two people that he killed in l.a. airport and those he wounded were the losers of that lottery. in august of 2002, a pakistani national pleaded guilty to conspiring to wage jihad by plotting to destroy electrical wer stations, to destroy the
israeli consulate. he entered the united states with his parents, who had won the visa lottery in 1998. n august of 2002, two visa lottery winners from morocco were indicted as members of an alleged terrorist sleeper cell in michigan. in june of 2003, a jury convicted one of conspiring to provide material support or resources to terrorists and hanan of possessing false documents. so the many visa lottery applicants submit -- many of them submit several applications under different names in order to increase their chances of winning the visa lottery. and marriage fraud is rampant in the program.
pop-up spouses often appear in between the applicant registers for the lottery and the time when the applicant is interviewed by the state department. these spouses pay the applicant in order to be part of the applicant's green card winnings, winnings from the visa lottery. the united states has the most generous immigration system in the world. admitting more than one million legal immigrants each year. there's no country in the world that allows that many people to come into their country legally. we're far from being the largest country either geographicically or population wise and yet we are the most generous country in the world in allowing people into our country legally. but chairman demrat says eliminating the program will make it smarter and safer for
the age in which we live. our immigration policy should be based on our national needs, security and economics as opposed to an arbitrary system. the visa lottery is too much of a gamble for our nation to make with our ongoing threat of terrorism and it must come to an end. there is no other country in the world that is so stupid regarding its own national security and national interests that it allows a lottery to determine who would get a visa to come into their country. it hopefully will be ending soon. and that's why there was this article in "the daily collar" g.o.p. senators distance themselves from diversity visa program that helped create. it, hose who helped create
the senator is saying, maybe it's time to get rid of it. yesterday, though, in the house judiciary committee, we did have and it is being urged by law enforcement, federal law enforcement, by the justice department and f.b.i. that national security administration, c.i.a., our intelligence folks, they're saying we've got to have this 702 program re-authorized that will end on december 31 of this year. well, we know that the system has been abused. here e assured when i was early on in congress that, gee, just re-authorize this because, you know, there's no americans that are going to be harmed by
allowing these warrantless wiretapping situations. the only way an american could be caught up in this wiretapping to d be if they are talking a foreign -- known foreign terrorists or member of a known foreign terrorist organization. so that gave me some security. and back then, some years back, when we were authorizing the program, i said, look, my friends that were against the program because they are afraid an american will be caught up, well, if they're afraid of being caught up in this wiretapping, this tapping into phone calls, then just make sure their foreign terrorist friends call them on somebody else's phone. but that was glibly said. little did i know it's not just
foreign -- known foreign terrorists and it's not members of known terrorist organizations, it has gotten so far afield that even if a member of congress has an innocent visit with a diplomat or an ambassador from a foreign country, that can be and apparently been told has been used to listen in and monitor conversations. but we were assured there's a great safeguard because if an american is picked up under this monitoring of foreign terrorists, then american name will be masked so nobody will know who it was, so it will protect through the fourth amendment, protect them from having a warrantless search of a
conversation without a warrant from a judge, which requires proving proximate cause or probable cause, rather, that the individual is involved in a crime, has committed a crime and then that probable cause being proved, as a judge, i signed felony warrants for searches, for seizures, for arrests, but you had to have probable cause. this allows them to grab those conversations without probable cause. so with all we've begun to learn and especially then we found out how liberal the obama administration was with unmasking american names and that we had people that have shown themselves to be extremely political in their decisions and
activities even being willing to go on sunday morning television shows six times in one day and lie intentionally to the american public about the benghazi matter, that that same political person would be unmasking american names right and left. nd although -- although i know there's one republican who said, i talked to her, i'm convinced she's fine, well, i'm not. and we need that being thoroughly investigated as well as the other unmaskings being properly and thoroughly investigated. by people that are not so gullible. this is serious stuff. en we in congress allow this loophole around the fourth amendment requirement for
warrants in order to seize or btain evidence, we anticipated that it would be carefully and strictly adhered to. nd then we see the unmasking has been so liberally done and here certainly seems to be a prima facie indication when you look at who unmaskings -- unmasked and the people who were unmasked that you have one political party in power investigating their political pponents for political gain. and once again, thank god it didn't end up the way they hoped. but this is still quite serious. and that's why i applauded my friend, another fellow felony judge in our background, former judge ted poe, and zoe lofgren
from california, democrat, had a good amendment. in my opinion. and it was going to require that before law enforcement they obtain these american names and enforcement law apparently once they've obtained these american names and phone umbers and conversations and obtained them without proximate cause in compliance with the fourth amendment, we have countless numbers of queries being made into the database on that individual or on the phone number just doing fishing expeditions. and then if they find something,
seing if they can use that information to help prosecute them on another matter. those are truly fishing expeditions. they should not be allowed without a warrant. ok, say you obtained the information legally even though you did it in violation of the fourth amendment, but if you're going to go back and research that database you should have proximate cause before you start -- should have probable cause before you start being allowed to basically listen in on conversations or follow up on all kinds of activity that was gathered without any probable cause. this is what the government does that founders were afraid of. they didn't know there would be cell phones someday. technically proficient ability to communicate we have now. but they knew that mankind would not change. it has not changed. there's always been evil.
there will always be evil. in this world. and we have to guard against becoming part of the problem when we are in the government. and the founders safeguard through the -- all of those amendments basically were safeguards, whether it was the first, second, fourth, fifth, eighth, 10th, those are critically important, sixth amendment, those are all important to preserving our rights. and so i was saddened that that amendment failed, 12 voting for it, 21 voting against it. i appreciate the chairman and the ranking member, mr. conyers, agreeing to an amendment that mr. cicilline made, democratic friend, in fact, i had an identical amendment uffs going to make except mine added two
other safeguards, two other laws, and my friend and neighbor, office neighbor, that is, agreed to accept my friendly amendment to add those other two laws to ensure that when the s. government went after and examined and qureried this 702 -- qurried this 702 material, wireless tapping, as the hill calls it, this law would apply o those queries to hopefully increase the concern by those making queries that they could be punished. but this article goes on and says current law allows federal investigators to search collected data belonging to american citizens and authority -- an authority critics say circumvents fourth amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.
the liberty act would require criminal investigators to obtain a court order before viewing the contents and american communications collected under the n.s.a. program but would not require a warrant to search the database in the first place. so the liberty act is referring to actually was used as the mendment to that bill. anyway. i know mr. conyers, he's quoted in the article, saying we've been assured in explicit terms that if we adopt this amendment the lofgrenng about amendment that leadership will not permit the bill to proceed to the house floor. that was also a concern mentioned by our friend from new york, jerry nadler. but i would submit that we should not be afraid of
republican leadership doing the wrong thing, at least doesn't hurt, i guess, to have a healthy fear, because that certainly has happened, but we still ought to be pushing to do everything we can to ensure that the u.s. constitution is properly followed and we don't continue to have loopholes around it. so that is an ongoing fight and the senate's got to take it up, but there are concerns that the senate is just going to rubber stamp what the n.s.a. wants, they're not going to have any of the safe forwards that we put in the bill as it is already, which i still don't feel is enough and that's why i voted against it, instead the man who sits next to me in judiciary committee, jim jordan, andy biggs, voted against it as well. so there were a number of us that voted against the bill
because the proper protections in our opinion are not there. we just got to continue to advocate for that. then also i want to mention a bit of fake news that came from the huffington post and i've met ms. huffington. she could not have been more congenial, when i was at abc, going to be on the stephanopoulos show on sunday morning, she was a delight to talk to. but the stuff coming out of her publication sometimes is rather astounding. natural a debate in resources committee, we were a ing on some bills, and comment i made that was not necessarily central to the discussion, but i thought might be interesting, i mean, if they
would look at my full comments and comments i have made in -- and continue to make, as i have said before, british petroleum should never have been allowed to keep operating their drilling platform in the gulf of mexico, called deepwater horizon. they had hundreds of egregious safety violations when other companies had one or two and the only reason we can find that the obama administration allowed british petroleum to continue to drill with such egregious safety violations, such complete, utter disregard for the safety and well being of those on the platform and of wildlife in the gulf of mexico and those bordering the gulf of mexico, all we can find is they were about to come out and endorse
the president's cap and trade program, something that speaker pelosi desperately wanted and i'd read an article that indicated that they even had b.p. representatives in the fice of senator john kerry trying to work out when they'd do the big rollout of this big oil company that was going to support cap and trade, basically they would have an inside deal and it made billions of dollars that other oil companies would not have made because they did not have the inside track like the obama administration was going to give b.p. but that's why -- that's when the deepwater horizon blew, is what i understood. so that's why the ado ba ma administration was so slow to respond. they kept hoping this was going to go away and wasn't going to be as serious as b.p. -- b.p. was assuring them, oh, we got it
under control. they didn't have it under control. should never have been allowed to have been drilling when that blowout occurred. it did have an adverse effect on the gulf. it did have a very adverse ffect on so many things. but the comment that the huffington post, want to create some fake news latched onto, is, i was really upset and concerned about the damage that b.p. had caused. and i'd have to go back and look, it wasn't that long after his happened but i drove 100 miles along the beach and i kept getting out with my high def camera expecting to be able to find a lot of oil on the beaches. and i know i rad read -- i had read and seen there was a spot south of new orleans. apparently i didn't start close enough to that.
but i understood it was really ruining the beaches of florida. and i went along the miracle coast and the -- mississippi and alabama coast there. and everywhere i went, i'd maybe find a few drops of oil like we have on our texas beaches quite often, but it's just a drop or two here or there. and i was going where is all the oil? everybody said well it's like five, 10 miles up the coast. and so i kept going up, looking for this big oil spill. on the beach. and i knew there were people that were undertaking heroic efforts, you know, i'd seen those on the news. talked to people that were doing it. kevin costner had a great idea, it appeared, for sopping up the oil to keep it from getting to the coast. so there were herculean efforts
being made to stop the oil but there should have been more oil on the beach. and so they want to make it sound like that i'm just oblivious to any oil ever coming ashore because i did say what is absolutely true that it is amazing the way nature seems to take care of problems. and we know that because there are ongoing oil seepage every day. i don't want oil on the beaches. i hate oil on the beaches. it's infuriating when you're walking on the beach and step on an oil bubble and have to spend a bunch of time trying to get that oil off your foot, even a small drop. but, you could go to southern
california off the coast and find drops of oil here and there. from natural seepage. the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, go to their website they talk about natural oil seeps. and they said 2003 report from the national research council estimates on average approximately 160 tons, it's spelled tonnes, apparently metric tons, enter north american waters through natural seeps each year. and that's apparently one ton is or t 7.33 barrels per ton 307.86 u.s. gallons per metric ton. so you multiply 307 or 308 if
u want to round it, multiply 160,000 tons with 308, then you would get an idea of how many gallons of oil seep out just through cracks in the earth's surface and come up through the waters. . and then they're hard to find, although sometimes you can see them from satellites or aircraft, you can see the oil shimmering on top of the water since its lighter than water, it floats up through the sea water and comes through the surface. but any way, more fake news trying to create a big deal when there wasn't any. ou can go online to woods hole
oceanographic institution and have an article on oil seeps and say as much of one half of the oil comes from natural seeps of oil and natural gas. these features known to occur in clusters around the world such as off the southern coast of california and in the gulf of mexico, are still relatively unstudied. in recent years, advances in remote sensing have enabled more accurate detection and estimates of natural oil flows into the ocean. in locations where seeps are found, oil flows through cracks orming springs of hydro cash bons. lighter compounds rise to the water's surface and evaporate or get in sea current. they collect over thousands of
years. you multiply 308 times 160 tons and then multiply that times thousands of years, you will get an idea of how much natural seepage of crude oil has been into the ocean. but at least, the article points thethat -- and this is from "huffington post," about 24% of the oil that comes out -- and this was from the deepwater horizon blowout. 24% is believed to have evaporated or dissolved. the remaining 35% was naturally dispersed or persisted in the environment and only 41% was directly or chemicically burned or skimmed. they only got 41%. that's pretty good. it's not good enough.
we need to be better at doing that. but it really is amazing how ture seems to respond to catastrophes. but we are supposed to tend the garden and that means we do the best we can to keep the garden .lean -- so i want to return to the issue about the shooting down in sutherland springs. the president i think appropriately pointed out when he was asked about it, he said i think mental health is your problem here. people are screaming for more gun control. and yet every time it seems that more gun control is pled for or people that mean well stand up
and scream, oh, you got to do something. i don't think if it's wrong, just do something. well, it may be well intended, but that's extremely foolish. you can do more harm by doing something even if it's wrong. tragedies that lead to the worst legislation because people in congress feel like we got to do something. we got to do something even if it's wrong so the american people think we are dealing with it. jefferson wasn't at the constitutional convention, but he suggested that a good amendment would be that you could not pass a bill here in congress until it had been on file for a year. obviously that's never made its way into the law. but some of our worst
legislation comes too quick with an overreaction to some tragedy, some failure when we don't have adequate time to see what would be the best thing to do. and as it turns out in the texas shooting, the gun laws were entirely adequate to prevent that from happening, but for those who put their faith in the government keeping us protected, which our founders did not do, that's why we have a second amendment, you have to look no further than this tragic massacre to understand the government is not likely going to be there to protect you. turns out the shooter, man full of evil, was convicted of a
crime that should have prevented him from even having a gun. nd yet the air force failed to get the conviction into the data bank so that when searches were done, background checks didn't pick it up. so when the government fails, the founders expected that by having a second amendment where not the military of the united states, but actually militia groups that form up, they would be able to have weapons. those were rank and file citizens that were not hired by the government. they were simple citizens of the united states that would respond to suppress any outrage that the government might try to impose.
and that's what happened when patrick henry got perhaps 5,000 people to come out when the british government that was the law of the land, started going through their homes and taking whatever they wanted. they responded with guns, citizens coming out of their homes, and no i'm not advocating for those wanting to create fake news, advocating a revolution. we have a constitution in place that they didn't have in 177 h 5 that allows us -- 1775 that allows us to fix things without having a revolution. but the answer is not more gun control laws. this guy was full of evil. he had mental health problems. the system should have prevented him from having a gun. the laws that were in place
should have prevented that and i'm grateful the state of texas did its part. he applied for a concealed carry permit and even though the air force conviction wasn't there, there was enough evidence to prevent him from getting a concealed carry permit from the state of texas. but the other laws where the federal government is supposed to protect us, failed to work because the government often fails to do its job. really to me at became an outrage and it is something that our founders feared perhaps more than anything else when they were trying to set up a good governing document was persecution of christians. that's why so many people came o this country in its earliest
days. christians were as has happened over 2000 years, they were being persecuted. they thought if they came to america and they could have a country where they could be free to practice their christian liefs without government prosecuting and persecuting them. that it would be a little slice of heaven on earth as much as you could get while there is still so much evil in the world. d now as this country led by its supreme court, others like the alcu and freedom from religion groups, we have been told, you can't mention god, you can't pray, you can't mention
your religion, well that's certainly not what was the feeling of those who were the predominant founders and those who made the best improvements in america. it was a great awakening. huge revival in america right before the mid-1700's, so much of the country turned to god, had christian beliefs, biblical beliefs and children like sam adams grew up having such profound faith in god, profound down in the bible, looking below in what's right the rontonda and one of the signs up there mentioned sam
adams. sam adams was called the father of the american revolution. e was a product of the great awakening in the 1700's. he was so moral and so many people knew -- gee, he knew how to make good beer, but he also had a profound belief in the bible, in god and that's what drove him to push for a country where there could be equality, where people could practice their religious beliefs, whether buddhists,gentivity, orthodox jew, muslim, just so long as their religion should that ke and suplant
radical islamists believe. we have come to a time where hristians are being villified, belittled and this country is beginning to look like the places that the christians that fled to america had to leave to avoid persecution. so we get these twitter comments the re's an article from "huffington post" playing up the ridicule. one twitter from rose cash said they need a government that will enact commonsense gun laws. thousands and people who were mowed. another, they were in a church.
they had the prayers shot right out of them. keith, thoughts and prayers again. idiot, these people were in a church. they were praying. at this point thoughts and prayers means shut up and take it, katie mack. the murder victims were in a church if prayers were doing you dot, ss slack of s dot, dot. they were already in church. seems like prayers do nothing. actual reform is needed. another, to all those asking for thoughts and prayers seems your direct line to god is not working. josh, terror attacks that kill six get travel ban same day. deadliest mass shooting gets
prayers and too soon to talk. another, after a mass shooting in the church, thoughts and prayers from the mouths of useless politicians because more asa nine. we need more than prayers. the victims were in a church praying. ar-15. a ban on ar-15's, ere a ban of the shooter probably would have been able to kill everybody in the church because the guy that stopped him, thank god, had an ar-15 that he used to shoot him and get the carnage to stop. . clearly your prayers aren't working if a mass shooting can take place in a church. many we can try a legislative solution now. i mean, it just goes on and on. belittling christians,
belittling people who believe in the power of prayer. then we had an article from "the hill". today. representative jarod huffman in a new interview says he thinks there's too much religion in politics. huffman told "the washington post" he has for years not and he questionnaires that ask him about religious beliefs. instead putting unspecified or none of your business. i don't believe in religious tests. i don't either. although if somebody says, they're a christian and they come before our committee, and they make -- keep making a big deal about i'm a christian, then as we know, even in court, credibility is always an issue. if you say under oath you're one thing and it turns out you're not, you're not really a christian, you don't have christian beliefs, then that is worth knowing. you say you're a christian, what does that mean? i will not hesitate to ask
that. if it's going to reflect not on their religious beliefs, i'm not going to hold those against anybody, but if you say you're one thing and you're lying, that's important to find out. but anyway. more of the same. but there's a great article in national very view by david french, november 6, in the face of evil, prayer is the most rational and effective response. he points out that while i disagree with avegyifts, my war he will right now isn't with their disbelief, it's with their choosing this moment to not only mock christians, but also display their ignorance of basic christian theology. you see the presence of evil, especially the increasing presence of evil, demands a prayerful response. scripture is full of examples of god's people crying out to him in great distrells.
jesus cries out to god -- distress. geeus cries outer to god in great distress. he always responds in some way. but often not the way we ask or demand. if he were to intervene and stop all evil, then it means we become row bots. we don't have free choice. we become basically robots and as any parent norks you can order your child to love you or to hug you, but there is nothing that means more to your heart and soul than a sweet little child running up to you voluntarily, throwing their arms around you, saying, i love you, daddy, from the heart. if we have a heavenly parent, oesn't it make sense that that
heavenly parent would want us free to choose to love the heavenly parent? the article says, progressives always respond to mass shootings with a series of proposals that wouldn't have stopped the mass shootings. it's happening again. it's happening again. this shooter in texas, sutherland springs, could not have lawfully possessed his weapons, but he ignored existing gun laws. so who follows the laws? if you pass lose it take away guns? the honest people. the ones that are victims in a shooting like this. that's who follows. there are laws in texas that enable a church to be a gun-free zone. and apparently too many people assume every choo church is gun-free. if someone had had a gun in that church, there boo not have been 25 people -- there would ot have been 25 people killed.
so, mr. speaker, my thoughts and prayers are with the country and i hope and pray others will join. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. sherman: i want to thank the speaker for recognizing me and indicating that i can speak
for an hour. you know, we get caught up in so many issues here that we sometimes don't explore them in depth. and with an hour i plan to look in depth first at the president's trade policy toward china, and then toward the republican tax bill. the president is meeting again with president xi of china. they'll out a beautiful joint statement. they'll pose for photographs. and you know, they'll either be a -- there will either be a business deal or two to announce. these are the two largest economies in the world. they involve tens of trillions of dollars. so every month a few big things happen that are bad and one or two big things happen that are good. there's always a particular business deal that you can package and wrap as a photo op. but the fact is that we have to look at the overall trading relationship.
and the trading relationship is this. we run hundreds of billions of dollars of trade deficit and every billion dollars of trade deficit costs us 10,000 jobs. so let's look at what has happened while president trump has been in office. we look at each month at our trade and goods with the people's republic of china. and we start with a deficit of just a bit over $22 billion, and for the most recent statistics available, august of this year, we're up to almost $35 billion. what's interesting about this chart is that every month trump has been in office our trade deficit with china has grown. now, he can say that he doesn't have the power to do anything
about that. he just wants to be a pretend president. a pretense president. opposing president -- a posing president. he can pose for a picture but he doesn't have the authority to do anything. that is completely wrong. look at section 338 of the tariff act of 1930. and you will see that the president acting alone could eliminate this deficit by imposing tariffs on chinese goods now. but he won't do that. he's his plan and what done over the last two years, he campaigns like he's bernie sanders, at least on these issues, and he governs like he's from golden -- goldman sachs. which of course many of his advisorsing too actually are. and even after -- advisors actually are. and even after the campaign was over in november of last year,
the campaign continues. and he continues to pretend to be in favor of the trade policies associated with bernie sanders and others and he continues to govern in the interests of goldman sachs. now, this chart does not reflect services because services trade between the united states and china is not available on a monthly basis. but the trend would be exactly the same. huge growth in the deficit, month after month after month after month, february, march, april, may, june, july and august of this year. and likely to continue for the other months that the president continues to serve and that statistics become available. now, we're told perhaps that it's ok to give away all these american jobs because we need
chinese help to deal with north korea. let's see how that's working out. the president, prior to this trip, had met with president xi twice. now we have a third meeting. after those first two meetings, the north korea explodes a hydrogen bomb and tests a missile capable of reaching major cities in the mainland of the united states. all with the acquiescence of the chinese government. so whether you're concerned with our national security or whether you're concerned with jobs and trade policy, we can no longer have a president who poses and pretends anding norse the statutory authority that he has on laws that have been on the books since the 1930's. now let's talk about the republican tax bill.
this is a bill which will raise taxes on millions of middle class families. now, it gets worse in a few years. there's a bit of a bait and switch. they'll want to tell you, just look at how this bill will effect your tax return in 2019. well, if you plan to still be alive in 2027, take a look at the effect it's going to have then. let's look at middle class families. not the poorest 20% in our country, not the richest 20%, that middle 60%. roughly 30% of those families in the middle class are going to see a tax increase on their 2027 tax return. and that tax increase is likely -- is calculated as an average of $1,300 per family.
well, let's look at the individual provisions. to see how fair they are to middle class families. first, right off the bat, they take away the personal exemption. which on next year's tax return, the first year that this new bill would be effective, is worth $4,150 per person in your family. that's nearly $21,000 for a family like mine, of five. they take away $21,000 of deductions even from the poorest families in america and from every middle class family as well. now, they say they're going to replace that with a child tax credit, but if your your children are over age 16, that credit is limited to a few hundred dollars next year and then they make it zero five
years from now. so if your kids are going to turn age 17 sometime in the next five years, they've got your name on this bill. and they also do increase the standard deduction. but tens of millions of americans don't even take the standard deduction. they choose to itemize their deductions. so one replacement is inapplicable in a few years to kids of a few years old. and the other is inapplicable to the millions of families that don't itemize their deductions. but even if it is applicable to you, you're losing, for a family of five, $2,100 roughly, and what about a family of six, a family of seven, a family of eight, another $4,150 per child . and they replace it with an increase in the standard
deduction of $1,200 and a per child credit of $600 or $300 or absolutely zero. if your kids are over age 16 and it's a few years from now. next, let's talk about moving expenses. the current code is a that you're work at factory and it closes down and it's moving, 100 miles 3rks00 miles away, and you have to move your home, you have to find a new home to live in, you get to deduct your moving expenses. they take that away. but what do they sfleeve if you own a factory and you shut it down and you to move to china, all of the moving expenses are tax deductible. so don't let them tell you they're taking away the moving expense deduction. sure, they're taking it away from individuals. and employees. but they are leaving the moving tax deduction for those who are moving their factories to china.
and of course they take away the student loan debt interest deduction. in you are investing yourself or in a family member, education, the interest deduction wiped off your tax return. but if you're investing in a chinese factory, the deductions are there for you. so they're not anti-investment. they're just anti-investment in the skills and capacities of american workers. next is the medical deduction. next is the medical deduction. to families e only with large medical needs. because you don't get the medical deduction unless your
unrurmed medical expenses and thanks to the affordable care act, at least most people have decent insurance, but you still have medical expenses that are out of pocket. if they exceed 10% of your income, to the extent of that, you can take a deduction. if it is 13% of your income, you can deduct the 3%. that's not overly generous. it's not even applicable to most families who need it. who needs it? people with disabilities, families with children with special needs, people with cancer. that's who they target. and they say, well, if you make some money and then you have to spend it dealing with medical services, dealing with therapies
for special needs children, for disabled, for cancer, well just because you don't have the money because you had to spend it on tax al services, we will you on the money. and they do. there's another group of people who are unlucky enough to have extraordinary expenses and that is casualty losses. or someave a small fire small casualty, you're not going to get a deduction. the deduction applies when your casualty losses exceed 10% of your income and then only to the extent that they exceed 10% of your income. we have had the wildfires in my state of california, not to mention the hurricanes in the caribbean and there are people say, well, g to thank god if the disaster had to
hit us it happened in 2017 because our casualty losses are deductible. what about the next disaster? people with uninsured out of pocket losses exceeding 10% of their income will not get an a deduction. if there is an enormous disaster and the cnn cameras are there then your representative can come and ask for a special tax rule. first, what if your home burns down and cnn isn't there because it's not part of an enormous disaster but just something that hits you and a couple of neighbors. you'll never get a special tax provision. you aren't going to write one for three or four people, 30 or 40 people or 80, 90 people affected by a small brushfire, but what if you are part of the
next enormous catastrophe, your congressional delegation will be here having to decide whether to bargain to give you a chance to take the same deduction that's been in the codes since the 1950's or whether to bargain to try to get disaster relief to -- rebuild the infrastructure. so what are they going to do? it is clearly wrong and unfair to tax people on that portion of their income that they have to use to deal with in a truly extraordinary casualty loss. agh, there is another provision that hasn't been talked about much and that is the way they index code provisions for inflation.
there's some of the provisions they don't index at all. so they say, well, you can take your property tax deduction and itemize it, only the portion up to $10,000. that sounds like a money, but they don't index it. so what about 10 years from now, what about 20 years from now? you say i won't be in my house 20 years from now but the person you sell your house to will be there. and if they say, my god, all the prices are higher, the wages are higher and taxes are higher, that $10,000 limit is that i can't deduct half of my property tax bill. that will be factored into the price of your house. so as to the things affecting home ownership, no indexing, everything looks big now gets smaller and smaller every year as a result of inflation. and this tax bill is going to
cause more inflation and there are other provisions where they see they are keeping the indexing but change from c.p.i. indexing to chain indexing. it's a system for indexing the brackets less than would be if you just look at the consumer price index. so you say, well, i'm only going to be in the 25% bracket under this bill. and as i get raises to compensate me for inflation, i will be in the 25%. no, you won't, because if you are fortunate, your employer will adjust your wages for real inflation, but the brackets are only going to increase for chained c.p.i. we take away the state and local tax deduction. first, this is a departure as other provisions are from the concept that we should tax people based on their ability to
pay. if you make a certain salary and 10% of it is taken out and used by your local and state governments, then your ability to pay is the 90% of your salary you get to keep. but they don't want to tax you on what you keep after state and local taxes, they want to tax you on the money that has already been spent on taxes. the effect of this is not just on the middle class families who are going to lose a tax deduction on their return and be taxed unfairly. the right-wing think tanks say we know why. that will create a political atmosphere where states like california and new york and new jersey will slash the amount of money that they spend on things
like public service, public safety and education. and so we won't just be affecting the people who are not taking the tax deduction, we will be turning to lower families and middle-class families who depend upon public schools and will just cause a political situation where less money is spent on local education. so this just doesn't affect those that affects their tax return but affects everyone who lives in the community. now, as i have alluded to before, take away a big chunk of the home mortgage deduction, particularly the person you sell your house to later. so if you sell your house and got knows what the inflation rate may be, it may be significant, it may be $500,000,
doesn't sound like a lot of money then but sounds like $500,000 is now. so any way the home mortgage deduction limited for that buyer to $500,000 of mortgage and the property tax limited to $10,000 of property tax. what effect is this going to have on the ability to sell your home which in many parts of the unget try are your home nest egg. people in california have equity in their home and maybe they can retire because they have 25% equity in their home. yesterday before the financial services committee, we had testifying mark zandi, one of the leading economist, who is head of the economics operation at moody's. and he said in major metro areas
like the one i represent are going to see a double-digit decline in home values as a result of this bill. a lot of that is the limit on home mortgage deduction and the property tax. there are other elements in this bill that also adversely affect home prices, double-digit decline. and what does that do to the community? you may say i don't own a home, i live in an apartment, who is going to come to that restaurant and how big are they going to p if they just been told, go to zillo and see the value of their home and see a double-digit decline. the whole community. and so whether -- this affects folks from the new york metro area, philly metro area, los angeles, san diego, orange
county in california. you are sucking money out of the local economy and giving it to the federal government by taking away the state and local property tax deduction. you are then slashing the value line, es, double-digit dec what money is going to be in circulation to support the entire regional community? this is going to hit like a hurricane even in areas of the country that did not experience a hurricane. now, my party is so focused on the great unfairness of this bill. the fact that it provides the bulk of its benefits to the top 5%, even the top 1%. d that fact is hidden by the anomaly that most of the economic projections of this bill don't even look at the repeal of the estate tax. they only look at the income tax provisions. you can't exclude a whole chunk
of this tax bill and analyze it. but we are focused on the huge unfairnesses that we almost don't want to talk about the effect it will have on the overall national economy. this isn't just an unfair bill or enriches the rich, this is a deficit exploding, outsource promoting, job-killing, growth-reducing disaster for our nation's economy. now, you want to know the effect of huge tax cuts on an economy? look at kansas. they slashed their taxes. and now a republican legislature is reversing it because of what that has done to tax receipts and to the kansas economy. but let's take a look and see what effect this is likely to have at the national level.
i turn to the center for on budget and policy priorities, where they say that this tax cut is an ineffective way to spur economic growth and is likely to harm the economy if it adds to the deficit. well, what's the plan in the budget republicans all voted for? to deliberately use this tax cut $1.5 rease the deficit by trillion. but the congressional budget office under republican administration of this house and this congress says it is going to do $1.7 trillion. but they say, well let's look at it more dynamicically. it will increase the deficit by $2 trillion because it raises interest rates and encourages offshore investment stripping economic growth out of the united states and for a host of
reasons i'll get to. the more you look at the tax cut, the more apparent it is that it will cut economic growth and increase the deficit even more than the $1.7 trillion that the congressional budget office during republican control of congress, the congressional budget office is currently estimating. why is this? well, first, because incentives to invest in the tax code have little or no effect on private savings, according to a congressional research service report. because the imperical evidence and numerous reports shows that the 2003 tax cuts had little impact on investment or employment. now i speak with a little bit of experience here because i lived 20 years of my life in the tax world. most of it right at the
intersection of investment and ax law. i sat with families and charged them a large amount per hour to describe what the latest tax law said and what investments -- what effect it would have on different investments. and my experience as a c.p.a. and tax attorney and certified tax law specialist by my state bar was identical to that of warren buffett. who said, i've worked with investors for 60 years and i have yet to see anyone, not even when capital gains rates were at 39.9%, or when they were 15% as they are now, i've never seen anyone shy away from a sensible investment because the tax rate on the to -- because of the tax rate on the potential gain. people invest to make money and potential taxes have never
scared them off. now, that is why when you look at the effect of this bill, you come to the conclusion, as the congressional budget office did in looking at the bush tax cuts, and whether to extend them or allow them to expire, at if you have taxes and you use that money to pay the deficit, that does more to help the economy, it is more important to fight the deficit than it is to tell various families, often at the very high end, that they get a tax cut. well, let's look at american economic history. i've designed this chart here and i focused only after the 1986 tax cut for which ronald reagan is famous. there were many things about
our economy back in the early 1980's and the 1970's and 1960's that aren't relevant today. we didn't have the trade policies back in the 1970's that we have today. o we look at the 19 -- the ronald reagan 1986 tax policy as slightly adjusted by george h.w. bush. we look at the policies that we had -- i know the 1986 tax law, you'd think, well, that must have affected 1986. no, it really became effective in 1988. so you look at 1998 -- 1988 to 2003 and we had an economic economic growth. then in 1994 you see the effect of the clinton tax policies adopted in 1993. and we see economic growth of well over 4%. and these figures here are real
economic growth per year, adjusted for inflation. 4.4%. so then george w. bush gets elected and starting in 2001, his tax policies are adopted by this congress and enacted into law. and we see that economic growth is only 1.7%. now, those bush tax policies continue enforce until 2013 because democrats allowed them to stay in force. until we finally adopted obama tax policies effective in 2013. those policies continue to be enforced right up to today. and the most recent statistics we have are up through september 30 of this year. the economic growth under those policies has been 2.22%. so what we've seen here is that when we adopt republican economic policies, and they
become effective, we have substantially lower economic growth than when we adopt democratic tax policies and when democrats actually pass those policies and have the guts to pass those policies and put them into law. so, you've got to admire the republican party. they're able to get member after member after member to say without any proof that trickle-down economics works, that if you just cut taxes, you somehow help the economy. it doesn't matter if you can line up 100 members to say the same falsehood at the same lectern in the same congressional hall. on the same house floor. what matters is the real history and the real history is that the higher rates imposed under democratic administrations have not just led to higher tax revenues, they've led to higher rates of
economic growth. why is this? first and perhaps most important, is having money available for business investment. there's a pool of savings capital available in our markets and in our economy. and the republican proposal uld come in and scoop $1.2 trillion of that, take it out of the markets, take it out of the banks where it could be lent to small businesses, take it out of the bond markets where it can be used for expansions by big business, and just use it to pay for the tax cuts. no wonder tax cuts that increase deficits hurt business investment and hurt the economy. but there's more. we then add to our national debt and the national debt is
forever. not only do we have the increase in the debt of $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion, but that debt will be here not just 10 years from now, it's there forever. your great-grandchildren are going to be paying interest on that debt. but then we have the international impact. you see, they're proposal provides for -- their proposal provides for a zero percent tax, zero percent u.s. tax, on any money made by any factory as long as you move that factory abroad. and if the wage rates are too high in china, you can put it in vietnam. now, they do, in addition to saying you move your factory abroad you pay zero tax on all the manufacturing profits, but because that manufacturing is being done abroad. so we encourage moving the
factory abroad. the work is being done abroad. we don't tax it. but in addition, what is an area of economic activity where americans excel? it is the creation of intellectual property. while the manufacturing might be done abroad, the design, the patents, the copyright, the trade names, the marketing plans, the trade secrets, the intellectual property is created here. but under this bill, not only the profit you make on the foreign factory, but the profit you make from all that intellectual property can pay almost steero percent american tax if -- zero percent american tax if you just take that patent and put it in a file in the caiman islands. now, i don't want to say that our current system for taxing international transactions is anything that we can be proud of. the present system, if you make
money in that -- in a u.s. factory, as a tasks 35%, you make it in a foreign factory, we also have a tax 356%, but you can defer it. so right now if you're just trying to decide where to put the factory, you've got a tax in the united states that you actually have to pay, and a tax on a factory abroad that you'll pay eventually. well, what do they do? they take that 35% eventually tax and turn it into a zero percent forever tax. how much more incentive could they provide to move american actories overseas? now, the present system also has a problem in that you can defer tax only on the money you keep offshore. so their solution is to say, well, bring it onshore, we'll
provide a little tiny tax on it and then all the money you've made overseas the last 10 or 20 years, no u.s. tax. and at least the money gets repatriated. democrats are anxious to work with republicans on repatriation. they can probably get a more republican plan adopted than one that i would endorse in this speech. but why not tax the unrepatriated money? that way we would be saying, bring that money back or don't bring it back. you pay the same tax. so you might as well bring it back. what we can also do is move to worldwide unitary apportionment. eliminate all the tax gains, and most of them are international. eliminate all the reasons to move factories abroad. and generate another trillion dollars every 10 years for our
treasury. that's the system that we ought to be moving to. i'm not here to say our present system is wonderful. i'm here to say that we should not adopt a republican system because it moves us even further away from what would be a fair system that would not encourage offshoring. another way in which we're affected internationally is that this tax bill would change currency values. change the exchange rate tween the euro, the yen, the chinese currency, and other currencies around the world. in a way that will encourage americans to import and discourage those abroad from buying our products. just another economic harm. another economic harm is touted by the conservative supporters of this policy. they say that by cutting taxes,
we'll get the federal government and state and local governments to spend less money on infrastructure and education . if you want to ask what is it that makes a country wealthier than others, it's first and foremost the education of its workers and then, second, the infrastructure that's available o productive activity. in addition, as i mentioned before, they're going to cut he value of homes nagsewide. most pronounced in the -- nationwide. most pronounced in the major metropolitan areas. what does that do to middle class spending, which drives our economy? it drives that middle class spending down. who's going to go out to a restaurant if you just have been told that you've had a double-digit decline in the value of your home? this bill will also cause higher interest rates because the federal government's going
to be borrowing another trillion and a half today 1.7 trillion. -- to $1.7 trillion. so there is a difference between me and my party leadership. they say that the main reason to vote against this bill is that it is unfair by giving huge tax breaks to the top 1% and increasing taxes for millions of american families. i say you should vote against this bill because it's a deficit-exposing, outsourcing-promoting, ob-killing, economic growth-depressing bill. but i think we'll agree, whether you vote against this bill because it's unfair or you vote against this bill because it's bad for our economy, you will be performing an important service to our country.
but let me not neglect, let me not neglect the fact that if you vote that the bill isn't totally without being useful to somebody. will reduce taxes for the donald trump family by over $1 billion. in estate tax and tens of millions of dollars in income tax. but maybe that's not enough for you. look at what it will do for the koch brothers. far more than it will do for the trump family. so if that's important to you, if that's the result you want to achieve, then vote for the bill. i think i want to thank the speaker for the opportunity to speak this long. and i will have a motion to make as soon as i find it on
these papers or just say that i i've been e -- asked by staff to wait one econd. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3243, an act to amend title 40, united states code, to eliminate the sunset of certain provisions relating to information technology to amend the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2015, to extend the sunset relating to the federal data center consolidation initiative, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. sherman: i do indeed. and that is a motion that we adjourn to the appropriate time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to
>> 50 years ago the united states was at war in vietnam and this veterans day weekend american history tv on c-span3 looks back with 48 hours of coverage. starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern, we're live from the national archives among the back drop of three vietnam era helicopters to talk with veterans who flew them. then from 11:30 a.m. until 1:00
p.m., we're taking your phone calls and tweets live with historians about the war in 1967. at 1:00 p.m., from washington, d.c.,'s vietnam veterans memorial, a ceremony featuring remarks by former defense secretary chuck hagel and memorial designer. on sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on real america, a 1967 cbs news-vietnam war special report. >> whether it's due to the enemy's clever tactics or the bad fighting conditions, the weather or the terrain, it seems clear that the american military offensive along the d.m.z. has bogged down. like the marines in the mud. >> then at 6:00 on american artifacts, we'll tour the national archives exhibit, remembering vietnam. and at 8:00 on the presidency, the 1967 president lyndon johnson vietnam war press conference. >> made our statement to the world of what we would do if we
had communist aggression in that part of the world in 1954. we said we would stand with those people in the face of common danger and the time came when we had to put up or shut up. and we put up. and with we're there. >> watch the vietnam war 50 years later. this weekend on american history tv. n c-span3. >> here on c-span, we are live now in the ways and means committee meeting room. they've been marking up the g.o.p. tax reform bill for 3 1/2 days now. they're coming back into session after members recessed about a half an hour ago. they're considering what's called the manager's amendment from the manager, that would be the chairman, kevin brady of texas. they should be gaveling back in shortly. many of the republican members back in the room waiting for democrats to return to the room as well. we'll have live coverage here on c-span. our capitol hill producer
weeting -- "politico" writing about that saying president trump had pushed for the provision as a way to get rid of the unpopular affordable care act. and to help pay for tax cuts. but they write a manager's amendment released today by house ways and means chair kevin brady does not include it. for this does -- nor does a tax bill being released today in the senate. and on that bill that's being released in the senate, should come out sometime this afternoon, a couple of tweets from bloomberg's on the senate bill saying that the senate bill would lower the tax rate for the wealthiest americans with the top bracket dropping from 39.6% to 38.5%. and tweeting that the repeal of obama individual mandate is not in the senate tax bill. ted cruz says. so house ways and means committee should get started shortly. resume shortly. we'll have the coverage live here on c-span.