tv U.S. House Meets for Legislative Business CSPAN March 30, 2017 8:59am-12:31pm EDT
down but i don't want to create a hole in the budget. the way to do that is to get rid of deductions. some companies pay very little taxes but benefit from deductions. others pay full rate because they don't have any deductions ,vailable in their industry maybe because it hasn't been a successful lobbying congress. the goal is to get rid of some deductions and bring the rate down for everyone so the federal government is the same revenue but it is more fair for companies. theink a lot to look at u.s. company, let's a starbucks doing business in germany and making $100 million in a pays $20 million in taxes to germany and its competing against the german coffee company that does the same. if we make starbucks pay an additional level of tax, they theoretically over time are not competitive with the german company. we want to close the loopholes. host: i want to thank on the smit john delaney for joining
us. come back again. viewers live to the house floor. we'll be back tomorrow. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. march 30, 2017. i hereby appoint the honorable virginia foxx to act as speaker pro tempore on this day, signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, thank you for giving us another day. send your spirit upon the members of this people's house to encourage them in their official tasks.
especially during this season of budget deliberations, give them wisdom and accurate understanding of the needs of the citizens of this country, most particularly those with narrow margins and their life options. as the trees of the city are bright with flowers, may your spirit enlighten the minds of those who serve. and may the beauty of your creation show forth in the creative work of our congress. may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. "new england journal of medicine." -- pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer. mr. kilmer: please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches. on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to make special mention of pat bradford who recently stepped down as publisher and editor of the local paper she founded, the lumena news. it served as the roits of the writesville beach and the community since 2002. this local paper covers a wide range of topics that sets itself apart by covering matters especially important to
coastal communities. it has consistently been ranked in its north carolina press association newspaper category first. in fact, first in nine new top awards for 2016. with her recent departure from the paper, pat is focusing her attention on the very suck sussful monthly sister publication which she co-founded, the writesville beach, magazine. i have had the pleasure to get to know her the past few years and will miss interacting with her as publisher and editor. congratulations to you, pat, for your continued success and all these endeavors and for your continued contributions to the writesville beach community and beyond. mr. speaker, i yield back my ty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. mr. kilmer: on thursday, march 31, 1910, bertle spirit was
born. tomorrow she will celebrate her 107th birthday. im-- imagine what she's seen. two world wars, technological advances beyond her dreams . when she sees a individual yes on the tell vone phone she cannot believe t she has an extraordinary legacy. loving daughter, four adoring and adorable great grandchildren, and three grandsons to whom she is a hero. and i'm proud to be one of them. my grandma is someone who is a testament to the greatness of this nation. and of the importance of what happens in this building. she immigrated to the u.s. from holland and was welcomed here and accepted here, built a life heemplet that's part of the greatness of this nation. a person important 10 years before women's suffer radge she proudly voted herself this past november. that's part of the greatness of this nation. a person who outlived any projected retirement, she's been able to retire and live with dignity because two of our country's most successful
public policies, medicare and social security. that's part of the greatness of this nation, too. madam speaker, it is such an honor for me to say four of the most extraordinary and almost unbelievable words that i may ever say on this floor -- happy 107th birthday, oma, we love you. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise today with a heavy heart to celebrate the life of john richards, a georgia treasure. a brilliant political journalists, selfless mentor. he passed away this past sunday after a battle with cancer. our prayers go out and grieve for the family and friends of john during this difficult ty. madam speaker, john grew up in cincinnati, ohio, but later moved to lawrenceville, georgia, where he became active in various county, civic,
social, and political organizations. mr. hice: he was well respected on both sides of the political aisle, serving with endless passion as editor in chief of georgiapoll.com. he mentored high school and college students interested in politics, and he left a lasting impression. madam speaker, john was known by the community as someone who lived life to its fullest and made the most of every day. his leadership was unmatched and cannot be overstated. it's great -- i'm grateful to know that through christ we will be able to meet again. madam speaker, i would ask my colleagues to stand and join with me for a moment of silence to honor the life and legacy of john richards who will be sorely missed by many. yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. velazquez: madam speaker, russia's efforts to influence our election constitute a direct assault on our democracy. this alarming events must be thoroughly investigated. in particular, we must determine if any americans collaborated in these attacks on our legally -- and are legally culpable. sadly the house intelligence committee chairman is either unwilling or incapable of conducting a fair investigation. how can mr. nunes run this investigation if he is briefing
the president before talking with members of his committee? how can he secretly meeting with so-called sources at the white house? mr. speaker, the american people need to know that democracy is intact and that requires a full, fair, impartial investigation. since december, i have repeatedly called for the department of justice to appoint a special counsel. i have also co-sponsored legislation to create a bipartisan commission to investigate. the bottom line is this, chairman nunes has lost all credibility. he must recuse himself. we need a real investigation, appoint a special counsel now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. it for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise to
recognize march as national frozen food month. in my district, growers count on our food processors to ensure their agricultural products make it from farms to kitchen tables. mr. newhouse: jobs and agriculture depend on the ability to transport our products to buyers across the country and around the world. in my district, there are over 6,000 jobs in the frozen food industry. ensuring that families across the u.s. can enjoy washington's agricultural products. as a farmer and a former state director of agriculture, i understand how important frozen foods are to enable timely delivery and freshness despite seasonal changes. freezing reduces food waste and increases safety and affordability. freezing also allows americans to have access to the diverse array of food products they enjoy every day. join me in celebrating national
frozen food month and all those who work to ensure that the u.s. has the safest, most reliable, and most affordable food supply in the world. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i rise against hunger under the leadership of rod brooks as a charitable organization committed to ending global hunger by 2030. they partner with other charities, faith-based organization, and corporations to host meal packaging events across the country where volunteers assemble nutritious meals sent to over 40 countries. on tuesday hi the opportunity to participate in a rise against hunger meal packaging event sponsored by the craft heinz k i joined 100 volunteers to package 7,500 meals that will reach our families across
the globe. last year alone rise against unger engaged over 387,000 volunteers at over 3,000 events nationwide to assemble over 64 million meals that reached nearly 1.1 million hungry people. i applaud craft heinz and its c.e.o. for their commitment to packing one billion meals over the next five years. and i appreciate all that rise against hunger does to address chronic malnutrition and alleviate poverty worldwide. working together we can end hunger now. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today because the american people have the right to know the truth regarding russia's
interference in our democratic process. i am a member of the house armed services committee and the message i hear from our military leaders is consistent -- russia is a top threat to the united states and our interests. russia has not only used its military to destabilize regions around the world, but it has completely undermined and disrupted the democratic values of this country. it this is unacceptable, and yet my colleagues from the other side of the aisle refuse to do their job as an oversight body and establish a bipartisan , independent commission to investigate russia's egregious behavior. mr. carbajal: we have the responsibility to be transparent with the american people. i strongly urge my republican colleagues to not only immediately establish an independent investigation into russia's interference in our elections, but also call for the release of president trump's tax returns. america's security and values are on the line.
any treasonous and unlawful relations with russia cannot be tolerated. madam chair -- madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill. the clerk: senate joint resolution 34, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, of the rules submitted by the federal communications commission relating to protecting the privacy of customers of broadband and other telecommunications services. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 233, i call up the bill h.r. 1431 to amend the environmental research
development and demonstration act of 1978, to provide for scientific advisory board member qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes. and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 35, h.r. 1431, a bill to amend the environmental research development and demonstration authorization act of 1978 to provide for a scientific advisory board member qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 233, the bill is considered as read. the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 1431. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lucas: madam speaker.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: i want to thank chairman smith and the environment subcommittee chair for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. . i also thank my good friend, representative peterson, for yet working -- helping, i should say, to make this bill a bipartisan effort. i appreciate his willingness to sponsor this bill with me. i had the opportunity to speak in favor of this legislation when it passed this house with bipartisan support in the 114th congress. now i come to the floor yet again to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important reform. the s.a.b. reform act was a good bill then and it's a good bill now. this is a policy that is built on the values we should uphold regardless of which side of the
political aisle we are on or who happens to be the president. h.r. 1431, the science advisory board reform act, ensures the best experts are free to undertake a balanced and open review of regulatory science. the board was established to provide scientific advice to the e.p.a. and congress to review the quality and relevance of science e.p.a. uses for regulations, but in recent years shortcomings with the process have arisen. opportunities for public participation have been limited, potential conflicts of interest have gone unchecked, and the ability of the board to speak independently has been curtailed. if the administration undermines the board's independence or prevents it from providing advice to congress, the valuable advice these experts can provide is wasted. despite the existing requirement that e.p.a.'s
advisory panels be fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented, the science committee's identified a number of past problems that have undermined the panel's credibility and work product. and these include a number of advisory members who receive money from the e.p.a.. at the very least, this could create the appearance of a conflict of interest. some of the panelists have taken public and even political issues on issues they're advising about. for example, a lead reviewer of the hydraulic fracking study published an article called "regulate, baby, regulate." now, this clearly isn't an objective viewpoint and should be publicly disclosed. public participation is limited during most board meetings. interested parties have almost no ability to comment on the scope of the work, and meeting records are often incomplete
and hard to obtain. this bill is both pro-science and pro-sound science. this bill is founded upon recommendations for reform outlined by the national academy of sciences and e.p.a.'s peer-review handbook. this bill ensures that the board is balanced, transparent and independent, all of which will help prevent the s.a.b. from being manipulated by any group. h.r. 1431 makes sound science the driving force of the board no matter who is the chief executive officer of our government. perhaps most importantly this bill seeks to increase public participation that benefits all stakeholders. currently valuable opportunities for diverse perspectives are limited. the federal government does not have a monopoly on the truth. ask your constituents back home. they know that. the public has important expertise that can't afford to
be ignored in a democracy. states, local, tribal, private sectors have a long history of qualified scientific experts. their contributions should be taken seriously. unfortunately, the history of the s.a.b. shows that private sector representation is often lacking or simply nonexistent. instead in the past, e.p.a. has picked the board, ignoring the knowledge, experience and contributions of those experts. this bill ensures that qualified experts are not excluded simply due to their affiliation. this will add value and credibility to the future board reviews. mr. peterson and i recognized the important role science should play in our policy debates and provide safeguards to give the public confidence in science. it restores the independent science advisory board as a defender of scientific
integrity. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. johnson: i rise in opposition to h.r. 1431, the e.p.a. science advisory reform act of 2017. like the bill we considered yesterday, the so-called honest act, h.r. 1431 is designed to harm the environmental protection agency's ability to use science to make informed decisions. the bill before us today claims to reform the e.p.a.'s science advisory board, and let's talk about what these reforms would mean. first, the bill establishes a series of roadblocks to prevent independent academic scientists from serving on the board.
it accomplishes this by turning the term conflict of interest on its head by excluding scientists who have done the most relevant research on the topic being considered by the board. the bill also prohibits science advisory board members from obtaining extrameasurial research grants for three years after their service on the board which -- extra mural research grants for three years after their service on the board which does a disservice. this bill makes it much more difficult for academic researchers to serve on the advisory board. the bill also makes it much easier for corporate interests to serve. this is accomplished by gutting actual financial conflict of interest restrictions against industry representatives. under this legislation, those industry representatives would
simply have to disclose their financial conflicts, and they could serve on panels directly related to their corporate interests. and finally, h.r. 1431 imposes exalted and duplicative notice and comment requirements on the science advisory board. i say these requirements are exalted because in addition to being an open-ended process, the board would also have to respond in writing to any and all significant comments. in fact, i find it hard to believe that the advisory process, created by this bill, could ever be completed. of course, that's the real purpose of this provision. it is designed to throw sand in the gears of the advisory board process and prevent board members from ever rendering their expert advice. these additions are totally unnecessary. the science advisory board already has a statutorily mandated notice and comment
obligation, and the federal advisory committee act already applies to activities. so if this bill passes, what would happen? as an example, i'll turn to a case study from the early 1990's. at that time the e.p.a. was forming a science advisory panel to review evidence of arm from second-hand tobacco smoke. thanks to the tobacco industry, documentes that have been made public, we now know that the big tobacco made a concerned effort to stack the science advisory panel with tobacco industry hacks. we take it for granted now that tobacco smoke is dangerous, but at that time in the early 1990's, big tobacco had succeeded in muddying the and ific information tried to defraud the american
people. if h.r. 1431 had been in effect back then, big tobacco likely would have succeeded in could he opting the science advise -- co-opting the science advisory board. what would the effects have been on the public health to have e.p.a. review body controlled by tobacco interests? that's why a number of public health and environmental interest groups have come out against h.r. 1431. in a letter penned by the american lung association, the american public health association and several other health groups, the effects of h.r. 1431 is summed up like this. in short, e.p.a.'s science advisory board reform act would limit the voices of scientists, restrict the ability of the board to respond to important questions and increase the influence of industry in shaping e.p.a. policy. this is not the best interest
of the american public. and i couldn't agree more. i strongly urge members to oppose this misguided bill. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i yield as much time as he might consume to the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the science committee, a fellow who has worked very diligently on the committee for many years, lamar smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. and i'd like to thank the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, the vice chairman of the science committee, for yielding me time. i'd also like to thank him for his leadership on h.r. 1431, the environmental protection agency science advisory board reform act of 2017. this bill gives much-needed transparency, fairness and
balance to e.p.a. science advisory board. these reforms will strengthen the public's trust to the science the e.p.a. uses to support its regulations. it also allows more public participation in the e.p.a. science review process, and it requires the s.a.b. to be more responsive to the public and to congressional questions, inquiries and oversight. in the last congress, similar legislation passed the house with bipartisan support. i appreciate mr. lucas and the ranking member of the agriculture committee, representative peterson, for introducing this legislation. i support this bill and recommend it to my colleagues and, madam speaker, i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you very much. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. beyer: thank you very much, madam speaker. i rise today in strong
opposition to h.r. 1431, the e.p.a. science advisory board reform act. madam speaker, h.r. 1431 is a blatant attempt to cripple the important mission of the e.p.a. by stacking the e.p.a. science advisory board with industry insiders. when congress established the science advisory board in 1978 to review the scientific data that informs e.p.a.'s regulatory process, they did that with the requirement that the board be balanced with representatives from industry and academia. the legislation we're considering today would skew that balance in favor of industry with the intent of slowing down the e.p.a.'s regulatory process. with the significant respect to the vice chair were oklahoma, it makes no sense that representatives are regulated corporate interest, however expert, can be creditably described as, quote, defenders of scientific integrity. i'm particularly concerned about the double standard mandated by this bill. on the one hand, the bill makes it easier for industry representatives to serve on the
board by only requiring that they disclose their conflicts of interest. there's no recusal requirement for industry insiders, no matter how deep their financial ties may go or how much their industry is regulated by the e.p.a. but astonishingly on the other hand, the same scientists and researchers who receive e.p.a. research grants or contracts are automatically disqualified from service. what's more, any scientists or researcher would be precluded for accepting any grant or contract for three years after their service. so the scientists who spent their whole career becoming the world's top experts on a given topic must choose between advising our public health or continuing their research. they can bring their knowledge to the e.p.a. and give up that work or continue. why would we make it more difficult for the scientists and academic experts to participate on the science advisory board while at the same time making it easier for industry experts to participate? why would we want less science
on the science advisory board? mr. speaker, this proposal does nothing to advance science or protects public health. instead, it creates senseless hurdles, burdensome red tape for the science advisory board and making it more difficult to achieve its mission. we need to let scientists and researchers do their jobs by opposing this legislation. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins, a member of the environmental subcommittee on science. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. higgins: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 1431, the e.p.a. science advisory reform act, of which i am an original co-sponsor. this bill intends not to deny science but to deny manipulated science.
this is a commonsense good government piece of legislation that will discourage ideologically based decisions by the science advisory board and set it back on path to making objective science-based conclusions as originally intended by congress. . further this bill would promote accountability within nsab while also strengthening public participation, ensuring that there is a diverse makeup on its various boards and panels, reinforcing a strong system of peer review requirements that work toward reducing conflicts of interest. providing ample opportunity for dissenting views by panelists, and most importantly, require conclusions and reasonings to be made available to the public. mr. speaker, this is a crucial piece of legislation. the rules and regulations coming out of the environmental protection agency have real
world implications on families in my state of plafment -- of louisiana and indeed across the nation. the current system in place allows for the e.p.a. to set forth ideological biased and nonscience-based rules and regulations. the standards set forth by this bill promote the use of good science and a strong and open system of transparency and peer review. i urge all my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 1431. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes -- four minutes to the representative from massachusetts, ms. tsongas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. ms. tsongas: i thank my
colleague for yielding. mr. speaker, since president trump took office, i have heard from hundreds of my constituents who are concerned about attacks by this new administration on the environmental protection agency and the potential long-term negative impacts on public health, clean water, clean air, and our nation's work to play a leading role to combating climate change. thelma wrote, without e.p.a. and its mission to protect our water and air, i fear that alt work done over the past 40 years will be erased, unquote. ingrid from grotton wrote, i need to be able to trust that the e.p.a. will protect our air, water, land, and health. but scott has worked so closely with polluters, even suing the e.p.a. more than a dozen times. how can we trust that he will protect our health and safety? unquote. and demonstrating just how personal an issue this is for
many people, katherine wrote to me that, this is my first time writing a congressional representative and i'm proud to be doing so now, though my motivation is less heartening. as a mother of two precocious young kids, i have little time to do much beyond the essentials of daily living, much less writing a letter. so i assure you this one is written out of a feeling of necessaryity. unquote. she went on to say, environmental pollution is real and in our back beyond a reasonable doubts. it contaminates our air, water, and land. cleanups of these pollutants is extremely difficult if not impossible and the implications for our health are astounding, unquote. unfortunately, the legislation before us today will do nothing to assuage the fears of my constituents and millions of others around the country who support independent, unbiased, science-based decisionmaking at the e.p.a. which is essential to
protecting public health, clean water, and combating climate change. instead of promoting sound science, this legislation would weaken the scientific expertise of the e.p.a.'s science advisory board. the independent body that reviews scientific and technical information used in e.p.a. decisionmaking. and provide scientific advice to the ep administrator. if congress really wants to promote sound science, i would urge consideration of the scientific integrity act, legislation that i introduced along with ranking member johnson and representatives lowenthal and tonko. our bill will protect scientific research at federal agencies from political interference and special interest. this legislation currently has 93 co-sponsors and it deserves debate in this house. the majority is trying to claim that the legislation before us today helps us achieve goals similar to those of the scientific integrity act.
but my constituents aren't fooled. i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 1431, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts yields back. the gentlewoman from texas reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i rise to ask that by unanimous consent the following letters be added to the record from the farm bureau in regards to 1431, a letter of support from the portland cement association, also a letter of support the national stone, sand, and gravel association. a letter of support the small business and enterprise ship council. a letter of support national association of home builders. a letter of support, dr. pat michaels. a letter of support professor will be happier, princeton, and co-2 coalition. a letter of support from the american expiration and production council. a letter of support, the independent petroleum association of america. a letter of support the united
states chamber of commerce. letter of support, the national cotton council. letter of support the e and e action i.n.s. pend institute and western energy alliance. a letter of support anti-american chemical council letter of support. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i might consume and would note to my colleague i believe i have one more speaker. looks like my colleague has a speaker also. with that i would note to the body part of the challenge that we face here today on this bill is like so many challenges we face as members of congress. how do you avoid the short-term perspective? how do you take the long view? how do you set into motion things that while they might not perhaps give us the great
advantage in the short term sense that either side of the room would want, in the long term they are in the best interest of the body? i would remind my colleagues scientific advisory board is appointed by the e.p.a. the e.p.a. is managed by the director. the director's appointed by the president of the united states. if you believe that the work product, if you believe that the rules that have been generated by this in recent years, reflect your perspective, i understand that. but nothing is ever static. we have recently had a change of administration. we have a change of direction in the leadership of the e.p.a. that will be reflected in all the appointments and actions of the e.p.a. i implore my colleagues we need to work in the perspective of what is in the long-term interest and that long-term
interest is providing scientific review at the s.a.b. that our fellow citizens have confidence in and it will generate good rules and regulations. when they have to be created. following this course of action advocated in 1431 will not make my most conservative constituents happy because they want to duplicate what they believe my most liberal constituents have advocated for years. but our goal here is not to empower one or the other side in these perspectives to force their will upon the country, our responsibility with the s.a.b. is to create a process where we can have confidence in he results and where, when appropriate, the end resulting regulations, the rules that come from it, will be in the best long-term interest of the nation as a whole. i know there are requirements
in here if you have 25euken money as a scientist to do a research project from the e.p.a., you have to cool off for three years. but what's wrong with allowing a little separation between the people who take money to do the studies and then become the judges of other studies in the knowledge that perhaps the people who have done the studies will judge their studies? what's wrong with that? and the public disclosure about allowing people with knowledge and expertise to participate, too. if they have a conflict through these disclosures, we will know. i would hope that whoever leads the e.p.a. on whatever day would act in a responsible fashion. it i just want -- i just want through this bill to change the system so that the perception is out there that the s.a.b. and scientific process and the rule making that comes from it one p.a. is being gamed by
perspective or the other, because that's in no one's best interest. i know we live in tough times and challenging times to legislate. i think my colleagues know in the legislation i have worked on before that i have always worked across the aisle. i have always worked with every perspective within this body. i have always tried to take that long ball perspective. i know it's a challenging time. but think about that as we continue this well-meaning, good spirited, very focused debate. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: mr. speaker, before i recognize the next speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to put ence spondent -- correspond in the record from the american lung association, the alliance
of nurses for a healthy environment, asthma and allergy foundation of america, the american public health association, the national medical association, the health care without harm association, the physicians for social responsibility. and the american thoracic it association. a -- thoracic association. along with the clean water action, earth justice, league of conservation voters, natural resource defense council. as well as the league of conservation voters. i now yield -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. johnson: two minutes to the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. less science, more pollution.
that's unbelievably the republican plan. i want to just refer to my colleague said. this is not long ball time. this is emergency time. where we have to deal with a worldwide environmental crisis. and this bill is just the latest attack on clean air and clean water. and as the threat of climate change becomes increasingly clear, republicans are trying to reverse the progress that we have made to address this global challenge. president trump proposed gutting the environmental protection agency and this week he signed an executive order to ignore the effects of climate change, increase drilling on federal lands, and undo efforts to promote renewable energy. meanwhile, republicans in congress have voted to block environmental protections. republicans are replace president obama's clean power plan with essentially a dirty
power plan that will pollute our air and contaminate our water and put our children and our grandchildren at risk. those actions further confirm republicans place on the wrong side of history. it's time for america to lead not to ignore reality. we should be investing in clean job-producing energy. we should be at the forefront of the fight against climate change. my constituents and most americans expect to drink clean water and breathe fresh air. they want to protect our planet for future generations. republicans today have it backward. we need more science and less pollution. i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and resist those attacks on our environment. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois yields back. the gentlewoman from texas reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman
from arizona, mr. schweikert, former chairman of the environment subcommittee on science. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. schweikert: thank you mr. speaker, mr. chairman. look, have you ever had that deja vu all over again? haven't we been doing this one ince 2013, 2014? i accept i have been off the committee now for four years. yet we're talking past each other. i hear the gentlelady and some of the others say things. it's a 12-page bill. it hasn't changed that much in the last couple congresses. how many of us would like to go back to the 2013 inspector general report that basically suggested going this direction because of the conflicts in these advisory committees? if you really -- this is sort of similar to yesterday's discussion.
if you really care about the environment, then you really care about the data and the information and sort of the ethics and honesty of those who are both reviewing the data and giving you advice. so what happens when the inspector general of the e.p.a. hands you a report and says these committees, these advisory councils, are ripe with conflicts? people on these advisory boards are making money, are making money. except what we do here in washington, almost all of it is about the cash and it's one of the ugly secrets -- it's not a secret, but we all pretend it's always about -- all pretend, it's always about the money. let's try something novel. this was an inspector general's report under the obama administration. why wouldn't we step up and respect it? it was very simple.
hey, we need some more these advisory boards and wouldn't it be wonderful if we they had something about regional interests that also weren't selling products, selling reports, making money off data with the e.p.a.? mean, if it reversed, if it was some other agency, if this same sort of ethical lapses were reversed, i believe the appiplectic but so many of these organizations that are on the advisory board that are making money on the -- from the e.p.a. even though they're advising on their behalf, they're friends on the
left makes it ok. the ethical standards are the ethical standards. i have no concept how the left can oppose the concept of structured diversity. why wouldn't shows of us from the southwest where substantial portions of my state are native american have a voice? why should we allow people on these advisory committees who once again are selling products, selling data, making a living, making money one step way from the very work they're advising on? it's a 12-page bill. it's not that complicated. i will make you the argument it makes our air, our water, the things around us safer, better, healthier and it makes the way we get there sounder and more ethical and we remove conflicts that right now taint the very decisiones that are coming out of these advisory boards. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from arizona yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. johnson: let me thank the other side for their vigorous defense of this bill. i must say that i'm a nurse by profession and i appreciate the gains we've made for using scientific data to determine what is unhealthy for the people. and it really does disturb me to see these protections being torn apart. it's really unfortunate that we have spent so much time putting these protections of the people in place to see that in this administration it will probably fly away. only the people of this nation
will be the losers with more health care costs when they don't even want health care. more people not able to get out of dirty areas. i lived in the state of texas where we've seen the detriment of all of the lack of these protections before they came about. scientists are in science because they believe in the theories that put forth the procedures for us to follow for the safety and protection of human beings. i regret that we are at a point this time in history where we're willing to throw that all away because we're allowing the polluting companies to have more to say about policies. i regret that i have to stand against my colleagues that feel so strongly about getting rid of these protections, but i
cannot sit idly by without saying that our nation will not be in better shape when we take away all of the protections for the people in their health. everybody wants clean air and clean food and protections from the damage that a bad environment brings, and all this is is taking away those protections. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. i ask everyone to vote no on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the second set of letters, which i referred to earlier. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lucas: with that, mr. speaker, i yield -- i have no additional speakers. i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i reiterate to my colleagues, this is a situation
where the goal really is not to empower one perspective or one faction over another. the goal ultimately of this bill -- and, yes, this did come out of the inspector general's report, the initial work and effort. the goal of the bill is to add transparency, accountability. the goal of the bill is to increase the american people's confidence in the work product that is then used by the e.p.a. to craft the rules and regulations that impact every life in this country on a daily basis. whatever your perspective may in emember the pendulum this great nation when it comes to the executive branch, in my time, every eight years has swung back and forth. just because at the present moment or the past moment you
, ink you got your perspective your perspective's way, where you think where the pendulum swings now you will get your perspective's way, that's not what the focus should be here. i remind my colleagues, in my 23 years here i have served in the minority, soon to be for 4 1/2 years, but the other 18 1/2 years i served in the majority. i served in the majority. so when i step up to you and say, we can do better, we can enhance the quality of information, we can do it in a way that the american people have more confidence and ultimately goes on and we can do it in a way that makes it more difficult for anyone to hijack the process, i say that sincerely. there's nothing wrong with full
disclosure for everyone who can add to the process, who should be available for consideration. there's nothing wrong with a financial cooling off between benefiting from the studies and analyzing someone else's studies. there's nothing wrong with this. but if you stay with the status uo, this board and this agency are in change. get ready for eight years of a dramatically different way of doing things. now, maybe you're so confident that the pendulum will swing back again that you're willing to accept that, but as for me, i want to stay between the lines. i want to focus in ways that for the long term represent the best interests of this great country. with that i ask my colleagues to vote for h.r. 1431. i ask my colleagues to think
about 10 or 20 years down the road. i ask my colleagues to put the long-term best interests of their constituents first. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 233, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the environmental research, development, and demonstration authorization act of 1978 to provide for scientific advisory board member qualifications, public participation, and for
ther purposes. for eaker pro tempore: what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. foster of illinois moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1431 to the committee on science, space and technology with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 5, line 4, strike and. page 5, line 9, strike the period and insert and. page 5 after line 9 insert the following, i, a board member during the member's term of service on the board and for a period of three years following the end of that member's service on the board shall not be employed by any corporate or any other entity which has
interest before the board. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. foster: thank you, mr. chairman. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. this amendment is a commonsense and logical addition to this bill. it will help ensure that members of the e.p.a.'s science advisory board will act in the best interest of the american people and our environment. i think that we can all agree that now more than ever we need integrity in government, and this amendment would simply prohibit any member of the e.p.a.'s science advisory board from being employed by any entity, corporate or otherwise, which has interests before the board. this prohibition would be in place during the member's time on the board and would extend for three years after they leave the board.
my republican colleagues have taken up this bill with the stated intent of protecting the scientific integrity of the e.p.a., and this amendment will go a long way to making sure that they keep their word. the underlying bill also includes a similar prohibition on board members applying for a grant or contract from the e.p.a. during their service or for three years after, and as the chairman just said, there's nothing wrong with a financial cooling off period. however, the authors of this bill are apparently concerned that members of the board would be tempted to favor environmental concerns in the hopes of getting an e.p.a. grant. therefore, it also stems to reason they should worry equally about a board member tilting the scales in favor of a specific industry in return for future financial compensation or career advancement. the classic revolving door problem. and so what this motion to recommit does is something that i think we all should be able to agree is a good thing.
we've seen too many people in the president's cabinet who appear to have connections too close to the business interests they regulate rather than the interests of the american people. this amendment would ensure that no one can unduly personally profit from their time at the e.p.a. and that members are there to represent the interests of the american people and our environment rather than their own self-interests. finally, i'd like to close by bringing up a more general question of why we seem to have variations on this repetitive theme whether or not we can pollute our way out of the structural and economic challenges that our country faces. mr. speaker, you and your party have been very successful at selling yourselves and your supporters on the idea that if we can just once again dump unlimited pollutants into our rivers and streams and to our groundwater, our food, air, lungs, our blood streams and those of our children then everything will be great again in america. this week we saw our president surrounded by earnest and hopeful young coal miners as he
gutted environmental regulations and promised them that all their jobs are coming back. we've seen interviews on tv with desperate families in app lachia to pay for -- appalachia to pay for things. and then we've seen interviews with coal executives quietly pointing out that those jobs will not come back, that it was machines and forces that took those jobs in coal country destroys the same in oil country where even as oil production has rebounded, the jobs and wages have not come back because of automation. the same way that machines took the jobs in rural america and manufacturing america and increasingly middle-class, white-collar america. so until we realize we are all in this together and that a fundamental restructuring of our economy is needed rather than a mindless retraction of the protections on
environmental quality on the land that we will pass onto our children, then i am afraid we are destined to repeat this loop of marginally productive debate. thank you, all, and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: i rise in opposition to the motion, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: thank you, speaker. i look at this language. i'm a farmer by trade. i'm not an attorney. i will confess that. but the phrase, or other entity , that seems to me to be a very broad concept. how will that affect the people who work for research foundations at institutions of higher education? how will that affect entities, people in think tanks in places
like washington, d.c.? i personally believe the language is intended more to simply turn the bill inside-out. on that basis i would ask my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit with instructions and to pass the underlying bill. but i go one step further. and i offer this in the most sincerest of ways. but if you look at the discussion today, if you look at the discussion that has gone on for some time on these issues, it's almost as though there are certain perspectives who are trying to force their will, their perspective of what is right and wrong scientifically or economically or socially on the rest of the country. on the rest of us. for that matter the rest of the world. that's why i'm the author of this bill. no one entity should have the power by manipulating the
bureaucratic process or the rule making process to enforce their definitions of everything on the rest of us. we have both the right and the to judge this information and to make decisions about what is in our enlightened self-interest, as the old economist would say, or the best interest of the country or society as a whole. that's why i want all of us, the great american people, to and some certainty about the people and the process that are driving everything in our world. reject the motion, pass the bill, create greater ansparency, incorporate more
inwhen it's necessary to have rules and regulations to generate good rules and regulations so that we all have a chance to prosper and to live up to our potential in this country. don't let the tyranny of the idealistic, whatever perspective they may have, drive us all into despair and destruction. with that, i respectfully ask my colleagues reject this motion, pass the underlying bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to.
mr. foster: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage of the bill. it 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.]
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is correct. the house is not in order. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of making n announcement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. session: mr. speaker, yesterday the rules committee issued announcements outlining amendment processes for two measures likely to come before the rules committee next week. an amendment deadline has been set for monday, april 3, at 10:00 a.m. for the following measures. h.r. 1343, the encouraging employee owner -- employee ownership act, and h.r. 1219, the supporting america's
innovative act. the text it of the measures are available on the web committee seb webb site. fell free to contact me with any questions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. without objection, five-minute voting will fin. -- continue. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. he ayes have it. ms. johnson: mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas be recognized? ms. johnson: i like to request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise atcht a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned
for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader, mr. mccarthy, the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i yield to my riend, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: please take your conversations off the floor. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30. on tuesday 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, last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, no votes are expected in the house. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. in addition, the house will consider several bipartisan measures from the financial services committee that will create jobs and support american entrepreneurship. first, h.r. 1343, the encourage ing -- encouraging employee ownership act, sponsored by representative hultgren, which will open up more opportunities for employees to share a stake in the companies they work for every day. next, h.r. 1219, the supporting america's innovators act, sponsored by chief deputy whip, patrick mchenry. this bill will increase access to capital for america's small businesses and start-ups. and ensure our entrepreneurs have the best chance to succeed. mr. mchenry's bill is also a
key component of our innovation initiative in the house, which aims to accelerate private sector innovation and leverage more innovation in government. finally, mr. speaker, additional legislative items are possible and i will relay scheduling information to members if any items are added. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. as the majority leader knows, after today we will have eight legislative days left before the c.r. runs out on april 28. we will be gone, as the gentleman knows, for two weeks, or a few more days than that, for the easter break. we have not enacted any appropriation bills except for the milcon-va and the deappropriation bill we passed through this house in a bipartisan vote and pending in the senate. given the limited number of days in session before april 28, we're going require to
relatively quick action if we're to fund the government for the balance of the year past april 28. mr. leader, can you tell me -- because no appropriation bill or c.r. or omnibus was on the schedule for next week, can the gentleman tell me when he xpects some form of continuing to authorize expenditures for the balance of the year between now and september 30? i yield to my friend. . mr. mccarthy: discussions are ongoing about the appropriations process and how to ensure the government sfunded after april 28. i do thank -- is funded after april 28. i do thank my friend for being a good partner. i don't anticipate floor action next week but as always, i will advise members when action is
scheduled in the house. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. does the gentleman contemplate the possibility of a short-term c.r. being necessary? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding again. i was encouraged by the bipartisan agreements we reached on milcon-va bill and the defense appropriation bills. and as you know together, these bills make up roughly one half of our total discretionary spending. however, i was disappointed to hear that democrats have apparently walked away from the negotiating table on further bipartisan agreements like these. and personally, i was disappointed to hear rume o'rume -- rumors that democrats are hoping for a government shutdown. "the new york times" reported as a minority party struggling to show resistance in the era of president trump, democrats are now ready to let the lights of government go dark. i sincerely hope these rumors and reports aren't true and i
know the gentleman doesn't want a shutdown and as i mentioned discussions are ongoing about how to ensure the government is funded after april 28. i want everybody to know my door is always opened, especially to you, my friend from maryland, and any house colleague who wants to play a constructive role in the process. i firmly believe that government won't be shut down. it will be funded further. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for the information and comments. frarningly, i want to -- frankly, i want to tell the majority leader nobody on my side -- maybe someplace else -- nobody on my side wants to shut down the government. of course, i'll remind my friend, the majority leader -- and i appreciate his comments about our cooperation and ability to work together -- the only way the government has been kept over over the last five years has been with democratic votes. because my friend didn't have 18 votes on his side of the
aisle to do that. so i think that belies the fact that we want to shut down government. i would assure my friend, that is neither our intent, desire, and as a matter of fact we want to work quickly to avoid that happening. that's not good for obviously the american people. it's not good for managers trying to plan on how to deliver services. and it's certainly not good for our federal employees. so i would want to work with you to make sure that doesn't happen. and as we have in the past, we'll be prepared to provide the votes as we have every time to assure that does not happen. let me ask my friend, as we work towards the end of not shutting down government and passing hopefully an omnibus which will complete the 2017
appropriations process and funding government through september 30, let me ask him. he was quoting some information . i have a quote for him as well. i know he would be disappointed if i didn't have a quote. this is not nearly as difficult as some of the others, however. it says, house republicans are considering making another run next week at the passing of the health care bill that they abruptly pulled from the floor in a setback to their efforts to repeal obamacare. two republican lawyers say the leaders are discussing holding a vote, even staying into next weekend if necessary, but it's unclear what changes would be made to the g.o.p.'s health care bill. that was in bloomberg news on march 29. does the majority -- i know he didn't announce that for next week. i know next week is our -- on thursday we will break for the easter break. does the majority leader have any information or expectation
that we would be considering another bill seeking to repeal the affordable care act next week? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman knows from the widespread disagreement that obamacare is failing. you disagree with that but the majority of americans agree it is collapsing, that we have to solve this problem. as of today, i do not have anything scheduled for next week. but as we continue discussions with our members as we move forward, i anticipate in the future that we would have that vote. i yield back. mr. hoyer: if i thank the gentleman but if i hear what the gentleman just said, my interpretation is we don't expect anything next week but -- does not mean we won't we will expect something in the future, is that the correct reading of it?
mr. mccarthy: that's correct. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for that and i yield back the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday, april 3, 2017, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate penn state men's wrestling team for winning the ncaa division i national championship earlier this month in throughs, missouri. mr. speaker, penn state has --
in st. louis, missouri. mr. speaker, penn state has been a force to be reckoned with in wrestling. this is their sixth title in seventh year. second consecutive national title. i cannot be more proud of my alma mater or this team that gave us a season to remember. many college athletes dream about participating at the ncaa championships and marks the pencal of their athletic -- pinnacle of their athletic careers. bo nickel, jason nalth and zane rutherford combined for 82.5 points which would have placed the trio six overall in the final team standings. penn state also made history with all-americans true freshman mark paul and registered freshman vincenzo joseph, earning their first titles to become first freshmen ncaa champions in program's history. congratulations to coach sanderson, his coaching staff and the nittany lions on this
achievement. your hardworking dedication shows and you are the pride of happy valley thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? mrs. lawrence: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, sir. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lawrence: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today to express my unwavering support for planned parenthood. planned parenthood's america's most trusted provider of reproductive health care. one in five american women have chosen planned parenthood for health care at least one time in her life. the heart of planned parenthood is in our local and rural communities. these health care centers provide a wide range of safe, reliable health care, and the majority is preventative which help prevent unintended pregnancies through contraception, reduce the risks of sexually transmitted infections and testing and
treatment for cancer. in my district, planned parenthood was instrumental in providing services to over 50,000 constituents for pregnancy tests, 5,700 for breast exams and 5,000 pap smears. this is the end of women's history month. that is why i am here today to stand with planned parenthood, and i continue to fight. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this week for the first time ever the celebration of the vietnam veteran wars -- war veterans day. mr. lamalfa: the last remaining vietnam veterans returned home, many faced poor treatment from the country they were fighting to protect. these brave men and women were getting the welcome home finally that they deserve. earlier in week, the u.s.
senate had introduced a bill that was passed which introduced the vietnam war veterans recognition act which unanimously passed both the house and senate and president trump signed it into law earlier. i was proud to join my colleagues in supporting this bill and the overwhelming bipartisan support is proof that finally the perception of vietnam veterans has shifted over the years as folks begin to better understand the sacrifices they've made. over nine million americans served in the military during the vietnam war and over 2.7 million actually served in vietnam. i personally know many who came from my district and now live there in northern california. over the course of the war, the united states of america suffered 58,000 casualties with hundreds of thousands, many more wound and disabled. we need to remember the sacrifice they made, whether it was agent orange or these disabilities and even the 22 veterans we lose each day to suicide. we welcome home our vietnam veterans and i'm glad we could have this recognition for them. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, you are recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the russian cloud over this white house and over our democracy is darkinning and i rise today to call on this body to come together to create a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the full extent of russia's influence on the trump administration and our democracy. mr. brown: mr. putin wants to weaken america and our allies, and have used democracy and human rights as obstacles to russia's reemergence as a global power. after russia maliciously hacked emails and distributed false information to influence our elections for their favored candidate they have turned their eye to germany and france. they want to undermine the trans-atlantic alliance. mr. speaker, we must know the full truth of the trump administration's ties to putin and the kremlin. there are too many unsre qutis ou faniai,
rsati a pital esanevry nw e w discerisolw banhe dioredacfr t adniraio e arin op a deanngnsrsow isou cnobemen acp pictoivt atenonfr ts vetigatin. dendt mmsi n teon w t fd t hahped dnsret veapnsga. .peerweus floth ct wcat t oseese atckd is w erga. ied ck t sak po mpe:he gtlanidsac orhapuosdo t ntma fmola sk regnio >>rspke iee coitn- a unius conse tadesthhoe foonmitentoeve anexndyemrk thspkeprteor wiou oeconth ntem roiz fr e nu. .ofanrspke i ri tdatoecnieth grdewi sool gi's ba tm omura lodo th wve tumedn ei 612 vtoy er lkeod
hi soon e lod-a chpish. ani fisd t as t ireiv7-rerd anelbred theulnaon othr asitait gi's bkealstehi n orherchl. seorikla onwe lk f tourt wh pnt d ig rounds. dunghchpish ge, th gndewolsrod hawi hrwo, ditindervenc anhi iosbl e ea w l t t amioh tle tough t omttdeaderip othr coh,jo uny,ndis mmdaeta. ai cgtutis e gndewig soo gls stbleaonher cotieducesanfothr vior ithcora ste chpinsp. mrspeake iie bk. e ear o emreth ntma yel bk. fowht rpseoeth gtlanroiinisee recnion >> ak anmos nsto
drs e u f o nu a t eenanrese myerk hepeer proemre wiou oeconth ntm iregnedorne minute . eer adrsi litehae of e mo potatonte alnges f orute, but thees ecivorr omridtru revees cetprre d ll rs thowurngriis iean stctnsn iso axpdsfera co mineas it uernethsuesf th pisgrme ad mas -dageou ratnsit thigtoes ilung chnand iia mr sneerathesa tme it mak i hdef o liryo an f t lrdccrg nsuees of cma cng ilung assesngtsmptn tial surty poly. th'shtoday a inodci te ime t, t enth ireonbl excuverd fm in plend etr e tmp adnitrioecnis o
no t ieratna mmniynrsndclat an rl d radl emacg rewae er fure thadniraon disn ovouengy pic bawasn wkehe unedstesglal leeripol,akgt re ke tt e energob ofomrowi b cat seer we mt omtoth, spo lieth gw cleaengy jsn e it stean eur wpas aeathr an tth nxtenatn. ndit tt yid ck epeepr tpo: e gelen el bk. thspak p tpo: for atuosdoheenem oteese ek regnio? isknamo conse t adre t hseorne mite risanexndy mas. thspkeprteor thout jeion, t enem iregnedorne miut tnkou, m sak. mrspak, re dain pptf r.72 t coangnt-semitsmct o 17 mro tinodehis poan listi why olaeroheth de
of theaie,epseate dekilr whito . ktof: nc tis jaarweav sn wa o olcenthatowds regisnstio aos amri. 0ale reha00 bo tes havbe me 81 jiscouny nrs acssuratn. i3 at. llse,heta ho, ao tt st its timehaweena ea sse,elio intolan aso ca meislace in th cnt. thomti ai-mismct 17ou crsehe pelto he vlt resndakth pushblasat cmeunr del w. he moluta reonbityo otect e gsf lmics. oriprey d who ar. etrt curch,
naog, r yregis stutn. wih isilwwi der res d sndnid ain rigusnterce anyomrspke i yldacthbancofy ti. e ear o mpe: t ntm els bacth ban ohiti. r aturseoeth gentladfr wming sk regnio >> a unimoucoento adesthhoe r e ne. resendexndy remas. thspkeprteor tht jeio t enely rogze f eine. mscne anyo m sak, riod t noba -ar e'snternte fe fahfullyerngurilar s delivseic plee s'selnuro pitns atheasnds rrtl exete sian t mmandeofhe0t a rc an tk or 2 af. waen shs spsie r ovin th cmaerndi omnd whxeute suport awe a svg as prol ealt fr e hequteta. teaisngsh 4-yr
rr,he ringhi ee hehe cre cre a foero-rks rchd out mabtecning h, geraotnessuedup hohe cleuefe aut h wneaique,ell knba iaatna trsu. nto an bb r l he de rercotrov he4yecaer aniwi h tve bt temt. i elba t ban omy ti. e ear o mpe:he geledy yildba. e the a rtr onmiteeqst unr e ear'anund poly f nry, 1he gelean froio,r.ki, isregnedoriness e sne othmari ar. mrkg tnkoumr peer mrspk, 'sy pvige toeecnid to are y er othflrf e it tas usofepseates and to oe aicontinue is
diog tate vei y, lf r mbs d af d t arin op a t itatthiagui wld leo coizheenem otheithisic o scsi .algh, rn inre b, yldo im for fie nus. r.algh: tanyou, m eer evy me he e priveg ofddssghibo'm remind h lkye lre toivi cnt wre'm freo pey nditu fer rriutn taatn. t'onofhere iveg obeg an meca. tofat many rod he wldreomf cscncis stll dtare. nowherishorapre ann ss. erut'shgi rim s isedhepris o t stovtrandayy y spp rsibantt rkshowofweocac stuny ounds of rsis oko e reets an sar ipresofhe krml's cruio returuiapoce aesd hdrs
prosts,ncdiut's liical cllge e tinege'baary ist stole poli dierce rsisof eepon cra e ing. inudg asectlasas wek he rimuivea mohe o fr d tidatio. samigofurrs t lite t desc litica opnets. li a dtaor he seso llh nati's spot aelg bl frnd anragns tealnees ti a ain firn eoia ankrnendow ri pinasareds w h sas rents lt ghth mnd ctc anoce ssa lke ovin suprto ealain afanta i afrai he eaued ouwnis. ruia arsi ile unecedayoocrs ain past ic tre is rur. atutan i ndenllat odd wh amicn intest te t son rlwa
mecaaid e unti f w d tt wld a tetr cmovaes an fgefr t fesf wa weith n jstecse were gers op, b caseee weeoe. rshdamics aled thatrti trcteur oree su r w f ttr vetment an rernngo olionismnd enneayavg phe tcr' bl w dd ic dunthfstalofhe thenur asurpes cngg,pun' es rtongheoet unn pstendow a titeoaisle,hend ofho-w arican precin ro d tuf weoli. uncubed t resf th rd ate stlie t ourenitn nct wh r lis. t skeimyinant yiger ifeootta utout nowisggssnil contueunl e y gs tar onhaayweay fe n uniminlchceete war r e esuconf e to
aiae. wchere oo wllav lo. steutteinus extlwhhes, hehed meaye shou ty wk wih rsi tfid aasof cmornd ye wha sn rsanho thlat mistrati'ses s tedo trelio t ti oruia areio d d n bie pin derewawi t ute stte hahe dir ithfrts ofonuewiouth ct. heol e rdf blff de rsi t sken anefrto et t fld founel is te s.ot rusihohos etrge hd. we cnoan wmt t ve ti t qusccee eqretouced ihilo tovtun e wlwe crte wn cetois tefenc i ouelectis e stpu t scty ofur decrcy f ovpais ierts f ymecan tooabat withurwnovnmt th a gorenth sks to deine o cnt wlde nohig ort ofresous
i clln doctirids toessthergtore hi ctil suasoin rehaanpptuty to co pital pois. ialonyelw puics uwarily rs veigio iofftsy pun udeinou moahev ty y a cle wh ismrspke urwighstgg agin e ou o dtarsp,weust mntn wh a fmisidt ll mollat he ctrstfr cii thfe sieeshee ten lenertu ea. wleve fe ciiear t perfect eyusner aio the hdsfea sieropagaiswhasrt thdio nsfor elivm. afer a esea wre stl naean'amic a lhtn e llshin brht a aean r l maki. er ino malqualce twn the utestesnd aoctyaspofe l lo pin rsi
amic eeponisrein ri dpn l r ne weeotu are sciy, ' e defrocty ou vueanou ddsil de ngft eh u i th camr on . ear, the nfct beor us ia mpne we cnofa py tfae eqfeneorai t coiz ordvsaesor wh teyre let uteurlv tayn ishaeanre sp . putisggresonn s ac. agns - tnk y,r. sak. yldacthbancofy te. mrki:eainmyim tnkheenem fm wioninoris stame re anfobrgi up thtoic ofmic eeponismn inngs ckhrghom ts sryhawe nd o vitroti tti. attemt ivey luable tosnd wldowikto el tth gtlanro ex,n ceiolmeca inis n g, .ab, fo amu tes eay
coum mr.abin: thanyo wi ha e ntma frm ia,myoorndand anou m saker. ri t ere mstng suor f tnnund li batrn ger jf esonth wl rminat s.epartmentofusce grtsosatuy cie es a t lalieha hae on t cpete itthfer geme ent ektoertlrdy deind cmil ie. nd ts umpocyou reaneta dlas ll no lgegoo its ad couie tthuhe ne athferammraon ahoritindeseo ora. esentrmp fstwo mohsnffceth miisraonasct t surou bde, t coage coliceit fer iigatn l, ndo dercrimil ie. ereou aistti p the wce t r crmil ie. an ttrmp t wco c h w en rov.
aewhorta o e natiol wsronoww leallins omenal ameri rea 1yer-d rinheoy bhromf puic higscol i roville,aran e t un mn, hr ncz, 1ye-or gtela a je,a 17ear-ol fm el lvor ca aosououerorr steaasnaomni ns. the omadmisraon itily trgedhefo poatnroeng b a thy lerreaso inretis myld. en aedbo t suaio ckvillcholffis sd atthlel stus ohe o dividlsidnoatr. rckll has dcled itlfo asatuy ty b t dff. ds maer ifhfederagornnt h ne is tyndmmialy reurd esill -lla imignttohe he
cory ts ungi wld noavbn utlyrad. fot sef isou rlweus surur boer ts. cis im wldeva tan ac hd e am adintriofoow t l d cud r rds. thgo nwss atheew adntrti iwoinar sur or rdrso dor crin aie a pte t lis ariancize. crki dnnanua ts iamrtt rs ep n e fiton othtrp misatn.c.ssd 3,3etne. he a ds f lal thits toeecrinl alien icuodfo 4hos tonale u. miatnnd cuom enfcentr.c., agtso me a the ina ie f eptaon 20 othseeairser ju dhne mng at lol thits dibaty dair requt
d lee tse iivua bk t t erantrts ts eecllcoerng beus44dein rue d tse invialhaaladbe onct cme ith it sat. the ret uspeyris, lk, es iluoci, ra,ssltdost vien, dentxpu th mno s oen ait min,ggreged - grat aau wh a weo hieef kdnpi, rivingnd t iluce itndun a sua asu. an u,r.rede,fo hdi cotae es ncarciesha lee escrinsba o o ou see. 'rlswki tenrc foeiours to r rnoutrs akba - cotrs te ckhe rin aen sitts as cdwckasurreby anllalli fm hti je h bnels s onseaieanorre dert aesein a -yr ntce fortmpd muer hatiadefed multie
tiso keac jqu, d dethoba mistti lc cqs s mp read t u.tet toerno hs fef cme it, thughaaiad gll kebiio osd. th's w hantded h..2,herina aen dertioeormect myi wthldfoig a fr cnteshao t retateheir imal alen isomnssete esures th cnteshabenefi fr t god wl t it steusho u e d t bgand ta bck eicrin ie. anthug his re exute de psint trpecr tt wld rerthiseae o vas toertairedesf nocoerivouri. nesshlduprthe pridt bloininhi foemt itesli s th ftu psint ds no ree isnfcent
ba othmeca pele ala psint trp a ca on coeaesoo-onry glationtooc in es prteio f fur netnsf erannd kep emaf a y,r.ham. id ck mr kg:ecimg te. iould keo pse qstn t e ntmafrex, thbl at yoharos atirrsherede's ecutiv oertoimeoe mi ifm hoe six unri,o u ve t bl mb fh? r. . rban h. 0. e enem fm wa i i tcoect se, tt s r. 8 h.1 m kg:ou ao ve.r. . . bihaishe
epriioorina ils. mrki: mo-onr il. tse apeatt prchou hae outo thicore d is tha f mto g hi auprteglaon ats oht m bab. hehabn lki ath fe aeci oth eranpeoplencomingp thoosod ias ho stngenndeorour atnasery. acofhe t pceof listion, .r 8anh. 8 a pce oleslioth a my heonrvivs haeigd t ad or deoroakarins sfe agn. anths ea aria, min t geaagn o ket sa ain would ad ts, m. spkeha im paedt
eudci othjues tt e thrut o t wt as al bon te cst faas bonhaii who a bk oud tir argen disonwhocinghe stus ts,ha cgrss s eutri tcorot t uit steofmeca ifeantoasa pcef giatn ataythnl op we t peopleo iar grn rtnsth tt' the w bu o t oha n oy do ngssethtes o aeg iigti i io amicanis eaan dened, b wgrt t pridt t utestates t athity tderne tse o wl t elletoom tamicju le yth soren tionta ith wod o cntlshe
bde. df e n'ha t thi, cgrs dst he te nstuon auory has eayefed d f e stus haar pruc bonesansied inabyreou psien n shastuty auory owhcos to amri, b aud somepce ineale haica pee t wil ot eraeoe, serdehe la ot ld d cstutn of t utestesnd suerde fel w st casen tiwh tt lw ansoetngha doesn sa tt'wt aealin withmpeake an i ientoxanethe udges re cse. d tnk t ntmafr xa wead hrigeierh weeor lt eeanth argashe w dcued se hi stury autri. nac, w isee
i meer o othwiess anitashefou o ran anasheesfi tat ata giat iaranha ared tathe w lelto .c. id io rtulouny d st ohefabo le on goutf ur hesecse yu ghbeicd ua dord urellaly he eca ththes from lete ste oicl d ask m an s sw ccre wthy inn,hait iairt ndton 8 u 124 rb tm anenure them too he dstay hre ad it c b -it c b wllll fo fanaluos ih's heasanacg tn a del lo uto 1yes a del pso a tt'fo
prof. t n f pfi ty wi fe veea a iis wh ea t stu io e co fo tudia mtt,t s eath t erf ad tattate muip tes ion kowfe d emr sebut he ccrewi m believth jti daren ou be loin iota lesto a ctin- earsjeo e me la a t rt w a haorg llallis a intho hh pfe. wea jue t i sngn aihoaorng tone rorel filta ieg aen tgouthe ba orwh.c. ages we grngheroo. hals ia vlaonf
u.c.13,aorg lel ies. coreass wsnthe la nd to be repeednde n'be a rliliti i weon he esctfoh ru olaw, mrspke tnl h teecfoth ruefaw hasee sered ate d evusrede antht ridt amwh oplynd btaly vled eupmeawf e ld d the nstuonccdig s dfiti. 2 tes bra oma sd dn veheutri t ra alel at t t opwhardenes drme, eefreaco fo cldren - gesth y cldn aies at it i. bu psintba im o deapanoma tme i wa'tnidte yi i dot ve e nitutioal authority cng t l. en hwaprsedo an
e w de ideidt ve th auory,ho2 mee onude ulge aw wtht ay y. he iu tdarr,wo o th aotitial - cah derd tior artsf tsehoeror reo llalartsnde ne ovthirrit tenibio d tt, th psenneh dn' vehaorha ogram d knw dn'ha e utri f eacpgr nd sido ea 2im d e su e dend e ectiba o geren benoar o t esens oer wchre in olati otaw he hasomndhexeti rah germe tviat th l a sseen t t ca oeroi o,rede oba wt cca and vea spchnd sd ubcl a
iss oidta, o. hsa is i anedhea r.peernpridnt er adonitialutri t chge t l. at nes tt it a thla a t hsen tene. threde gtsn oprtunittoigthin aw a areidt,e'fr lbhecore t cng thaw. t psinthod vehe datyo anupn fnof is nio a t wlday hae t law. doou reerhe w tialutge or ha aten oerhe costutnaiotis? ,he wn'are ouag i'grtly orednd man otredutthamic pelereomlacent. itwa't le b ctul vent i mi authahaenhe
a extreel ofeedy viatns olaw. tt' wn puics d moatettoth and d sothgbo i d nefhehgs c thk o iea iy ct an iulouth- iis an orani vepuitny ck ery d. brghanmeme tth ooofoe prentiso tff a ndg aortw yar fo w hrofhe vidtas aceutf orth wreoecd m oee cae kn atwagog . haannvtito fdi m inrmioani ce to t loout o a tuin suorngcohimot fule llor voeregtrio fmbu
e pd eoe mmsis pdu. mof tsencud mke moendh eirals wby fotlleaal gier tota e emoyeserpa o mssno lltoter reisatn. th we voatg l kd tin fmitncn d lpgtoacite ostuonnd oer thwasoad, bad that democrats were outraged. the democrats were outag a puicnse ouag a whhevios came rle u,ani ay te arian ppl rep ndaldthr mbs cgrs nddi ntvisn and wte tts t it a tks abt tchchndofe shpsndwe we enng
hudrs mlnsf dlas oanatn that s mmal a rrtnd unrnatwath cruioof r leor pce. eamogth here th moalndcotiutnaoutra d t off fdi tacn or anohe ailte surdat osceo and that has been part of the process ever since. i carry this acorn in my pocket to remind me not to let it happen again but it is a point of pride because i'm proud of the american people, mr. speaker. it was the american people that got that done with bipartisan outrage of what was happening to our republic and to the legitimacy of our elections in this republic. and i would remind people, mr. speaker, that we have a constitution that i said is the supreme law of the land. it is the foundation upon which our country is built. but that foundation sits on
something. it sits on a bedrock and the bedrock that it sits on is legitimate elections and we can watch our constitution erode by decisions in the supreme court and by loss of understanding what its original meaning is and what it is to be a contractual guarantee to succeeding generations, we could lose our constitution that way or lose our country by allowing the bedrock that our country sits on to be eroded and destroyed. that's what the american people understood maybe instinktively bout what was happening to our country and that outrage ripped the funding underneath from acorn and will hold that for long-term and hopefully for the long and increasingly healthy life of this republic. that's what needs to happen when we see our constitution being
undermind. e did that with acorn and it's a symbol. we have a president of the united states that takes an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states so help him god and in that oath it's specified in another section of the constitution, that he, the president, take care that the laws be faithfully executed. that is the take-care clause. president obama did not take care the laws be executed, he refused to enforce the law. he refused to enforce the immigration laws and he ordered the custom border protection, i.c.e. to defile the law. the law of the united states says when law enforcement encounters someone who is unlawfully present in the united states they shall, not may, but
shall be placed into removal proceedings. that's the law. had that been the case and if the law had been followed, if the law had been followed, everything that ronald reagan signed the amnesty act in 1986. i thought it was poor judgment on the part of president reagan and let us down on the principle of the rule of law. 30-plus years ago, i knew we would be fighting for a long time to restore the respect for the rule of law particularly with regard to immigration. when i watched the debate take place here in this congress and in the house and the senate and i read what i could read about that and i reasoned that even though we were losing in the house, the rule of law was losing on the house on the amnesty debate in 1986 and even though the rule of law lost in the senate, i was understood that president reagan understood the principle if people were
breaking the law, the more people would break the law and saying this is the last amnesty ever and you have to continually fight the argument of we really didn't mean that, there are -- it started to be one million people that were going to get amnesty in 1986 and the rationale, which i don't think was rational, but the rationale is we can't enforce the law against these people here illegally but need to have the rule of law and we'll gant amnesty to people who are here illegally and from this point forward, everybody who enters into the united states or is unlawfully here in the united states will have to face the law and deport everybody that has violated our immigration laws. we will enforce the law from this point forward from 1986. ronald reagan believed he was going to get that. . the republican did run the
executive government not overwhelm from 1986 but all the way up until 1993 when bill clinton took office. what happened was they didn't get the enforcement. there was fraud. it was well over a million people. it was closer to three million people who received amnesty under the 1986 amnesty act. and those three million people then were legalized in america by law and i don't dispute the validity of the law. but they were rewarded for breaking the law. that's what the amnesty did. and so i have talked to a number of them along the way. and they will argue, yes, we deserved amnesty. we came to america. we wanted to live here. it's a good thing. my family is bert off. is the rule of law better off? is america's constitution better off? is our civilization better off because we decided that we would ignore the law and reward people for breaking it? by the way is the debate over? did we restore the respect for the rule of law since 1986, mr. speaker? or instead have we seen the respect for the rule of law be
eroded day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year over the last 30-plus years since the amnesty act of 1986. that's what's happened. ronald reagan in his lifetime recognized that and would have liked to have had that bill back gefpblet i had the conversation with a glorious american, then attorney general ed meeze -- ed meese, who also recognized the vice president reagan got from his cabinet whether to sign the amnesty act in 1986, whether that advice was good and will i tell you that the cabinet members that i am aware would like to have reversed that decision after they saw the actual results. it's not that i am the most clairvoyant member of the united states congress, but i can assert with great confidence here into this across-the-board -- congressional record, mr. speaker, i saw this coming in 1986. i wasn't in public life.
i wanted to raise my family and run my business and live with the freedoms that are guaranteed to me as an american citizen under the constitution. but i wanted the rule of law. i have been raised with a deep and abiding respect for the law. my father would sit me down at the supper table with the code of iowa on one side and constitution on the other side and he would lecture to me how this fits. he would say over and over again, this is the law and you will abide by the law. and if you don't like it, if you think the law is not the -- is not right and true or just, there are means by which you go about changing it. you can go lobby your state representative. you can lobby your congressman, you can run for office which is what i ended up doing. i'm here defending the constitution and rule of law. we're a first world contry. we're the leaders of civilization -- country. we're the leaders of civilization for the wormed. american the american
civilization. the american civilization is a dominant component of western civilization. and if we take the values that formed america out of the values of the world, we don't have a lot of science and technology in progress to work with. we don't have a lot of economic dynamism. i know there have been wars and dictators that have popped up within western civilization, but fortunately we haven't had a dictator pop up in our american civilization. one of the big reasons for that is because of our constitution and because we have public debate and we come here to the floor of the house and over there the floor of the senate and across america again in our coffee sthops and churches and workplaces and our parks and streets and we discuss this openly. and we should listen to other people's ideas. we should consider what they have to say. and we should evaluate that. that's what our founding fathers envisioned. and as these ideas merge, what will happen is that sometimes there will be people on the
right that are never going to compromise. and there will be some people on the left that are never going to compromise. maybe that doesn't matter so much. because the people in the middle get to hear both those arguments and make their own decisions and they can move left or they can move right. but over time we build a consensus. and when we get to that consensus, that's when we can move legislation here in the house and over in the senate and to the president's desk for a signature. and america continues to become an even better place. but we have to have open dialogue to do this. and we have to have the rule of law that gives order to our society. and if the rule of law is sacrificed because people are ruled more by their hearts than they are their heads, i would say come back to the history of america. study our founding fathers. read the federalist papers. deliberate on this constitution that we have. deliberate on the supreme law of the land and understand how deep the thought went into the
words that are there that are guarantees. and our founding fathers understood that we had to continue to educate each generation and raise them up and not only in an understanding of the constitution -- and i double assert its original meaning. but they needed to be erased-t -- raised with an american experience. that's why it's required that our president of the united states be born in america. and that born in america is essentially short-hand for we want to ensure that all of our presidents are raised with an american experience. that's how to interpret that. and i'm not here to slice or dice, mr. speaker, the actual locations of birth of any president. and we have seen that congress has some authority to address it by statute should we choose to do that. but i am asserting that it's essential that the american civilization be preserved and it be protected and expanded.
and that we have leaders that are raised with the american experience that will come here and defend the american culture and civilization. and that's so important that the leader of our thought process, the leader of the destiny and direction of america is the president of the united states, our commander in chief, the words that our president says reset and redirect america. we saw it happen under the eight years of barack obama. we're seeing it begin now under the beginnings of the 65 or 66 days of the trump administration, madam speaker. we have noticed that the dialogue in america immediately shifts to, what is the president thinking about? what is the president talking about? what is the president tweeting about? they are never off the clock because this president might wake up at 3:00 in the morning and send out a tweet that resets things. so i'm fine with that. i think it's important that we
understand the thoughts of the president. and by the way, he isn't all powerful. i used to say to the previous president, you are only the president. it's the american people that run this shop. and they threw a lot of different mechanisms. the president does have a lot of authority. he gets to set the tone for the debate. and he gets to define many things. but especially the foreign policy. but we still have this constraint. and the power of the purse exists here, especially in the house of representatives. if the house doesn't appropriate monny, nobody gets any money. -- money, nobody gets money. that's like if mommy ain't happy, nobody's happy. if congress doesn't appropriate monny, nobody gets money. so that power of the purse was designed by our founding fathers to be the controlling factor of the things that go on in this country. and if a president is out of line, we're obligated to shut the money off to those things that are out of line. and of course the senate will have to concur with any
spending that the house should initiate, but just the same, it's the power of the purse that controls much of this. we're going to be guide and bound by the stukes. earlier this morning -- by the constitution. earlier this morning as the chairman of the constitution subcommittee of the house judiciary committee subcommittee i herald a hearing on constitutional rights and particular the kilo decision. the kilo decision that came down in -- if i kate get my day right, june 23 of 2005. and that decision was about property rights in new london, connecticut, that the local government decided they were going to act by condemning the local -- condemning the private property locally so that they could hand that private property over for a private interest to do expansion and development on multiple homes with an area of new london, connecticut. and i recall my outrage when the supreme court ruled that
that was constitutional to condemn for a local government to condemn private property for private use all had to do was to be facilitated by local government and hi not read the decision at that time. i hadn't read the dissent. i read part of the desifplgts within a week -- decision. within a week we brought a resolution of disapproval to the supreme court decision to the floor of this house. yes, i was engaged in that debate and some of the shaping of the resolution. but when the supreme court of the united states, which is there to protect the constitution itself, to interpret the constitution and the law, they effectively stripped three words out of the fifth amendment of our constitution. the fifth amendment reads, like this, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. well, the people in new london, connecticut, particularly the kee low family, had their
private property, their home condemned, conif i stated under eminent domain and handed over to private use. and through the interend tits of local government -- the entity of local government. i was outraged. america was outraged. and by the way, that's another time i showed you the acorn, mr. speaker, but the kilo decision was another time that the american people rose up and said, we disagree with this decision. and it was -- the polling that i recall from the time 11-1 opposed the supreme court's decision that would allow local government to confiscate private property. i came to this floor to add to the debate and at the time i was cued up to speak. the speaker ahead of me was over at this podium, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. barney frank. now, he and i had a history of disagreeing on a lot of issues, and i expected to disagree with mr. frank on that issue.
so i sat here in a chair in front with my note pad, note paper, to take notes on mr. frank's statements so i would be prepared to step up and rebut him because my turn was coming next. i'm writing notes furiously keeping up with his quotes, while this is going on, he was almost finished with his speech before i realized, i agree with everything barney frank said. everything. and so i spoke -- i came down here to this podium and gave my speech, but my speech fully supported the statement by mr. frank. and i added to that that the effect of that decision was to strip those three words out of the fifth amendment, for public use. i made that argument as emphatically as i was prepared to do that now the fifth amendment of the constitution that guarantees our property rights says, nor shall private property be taken without just compensation.
in other words, they have to pay you for t. but you don't get to keep your home if there is a private interest out there that can convince a local government that they will pay more taxes on that property than you are paying on that property. that was stripping those three words out of the fifth amendment was the exact effect of the decision and i did not know it at the time, because later on when i picked up the dissent, one of the last dissents written by justice o'connor, who had exactly the same analysis in her dissent as i had in my speech and as i believe, without utter clarity of the statement, that mr. frank would agree with it if he didn't say with it or no. here we're, the american people have risen up and we have said we disagree with the supreme court. we want us to restore our constitution. but amending it is pretty difficult. and by the way, if you wanted to amend the fifth amendment of the constitution, to fix kehlo, to have the fifth amendment mean nor shall private property be taken for public use without
just compensation, if you want the fifth amendment to mean that, i ask a witness today, how do you rewrite the fifth amendment and amend our constitution when the supreme court has so subverted the meaning, de facto stricken those three words out. how do you rewrite it? we really mean it this time. nor shall private property be taken. we really mean it without just compensation. we really mean t for public use without just compensation. do we keep adding, do we really mean it? or are there words in the language that can prevent a court from doing what they decide to do from an activist standpoint? i don't think so. i don't think so and a number of times i have pride to write amendments to the constitution -- i have tried to write amendments to the constitution to fix problems. i would say the decision in 2005 was a precursor to some things that happened by the supreme court although they are
not connected and cited, and that would be june of 2015, it 24, june 25 of 2015, burwell, the decision when the supreme court on a thursday, i believe you look at the calendar, mr. speaker, it will be a thursday, june 24 of 2015, when the supreme court concluded, issued a decision that they could rewrite obamacare, that they could rewrite the statute. the law that was passed here by hook, crook, and legislative shenanigans, but still within the boundaries of the constitution, the law gave no authority to the federal government to establish exchanges under obamacare. considered rt this and concluded, we must have meant to say or federal government, when congress wrote the states may establish
exchanges. the defacto result of the king versus burwell decision was that the states and added these three words or federal government may establish exchanges under the law. the supreme court added words to the law. if they can add words to the law and then they can also subtract words to the law. and i'm appalled by this. this is thursday and before i can get my feet back up underneath me having been knocked over by a supreme court truck believe they would be bound by the constitution, i'm pulling into a catholic church a.m. meeting a 10 with priests and members of parish, with former senator rick santorum who has been a definitive voice on marriage, we
were listening to the radio to do a joint event and first time we heard about another decision, the decision that came down on friday, john 25, 2015. that decision goes even beyond the idea that the court can insert words into federal statute that was previously dual passed by congress and signed by the president. and now under the gay marriage decision, the supreme court not only found a new right in the constitution, they created a command in the constitution, a command. it's not in the constitution about same-sex marriage. our founding fathers never envisioned such a thing or it was in the imagination of the founding fathers or in the imagination in this congress when the 14th amendment was passed out of this congress and out of the house and senate and
ratified by the american people with 75% of legitimate states at the time. no one can assert that was out here in the emnations of the constitution or especially the 14th amendment of the constitution. they can't assert that. they asserted that in the roe versus wade that the right to privacy becomes a right to abortion in almost any circumstance. they aserlted it was in there and kind of made it up and found it in that area in the shadowy edge of the clouds. but they can see something else that nobody else can see. but this decision goes beyond that, even beyond the audacity of roe versus wade, griswold versus connecticut -- goes beyond all of this and it's
this, the supreme court created not only found a right, but created a command in the constitution and here's the command. if you are a political subdivision in america that recognizes same-sex -- excuse me, if you are a political subdivision in america that recognizes civil marriage, than shall conduct same-sex marriages regardless of where they may take place but shall take place in your jurisdiction as well. that is the decision. if this had been a decision of the united states congress, it would have been litigated and found unconstitutional. we don't have the enumerated power or the constitutional ower to oppose -- impose same-sex marriage. that is outside the reach of congress. and some democrats will agree with it. if the states were to pass
same-sex marriage laws, they have the constitutional authority. i would accept it as a function, a constitutional function of a legitimate subdivision within the united states. that's how we need to do things in this country in a constitutional fashion, not bypass the will of the people and allow the supreme court to assert an authority that they do do not have constitutionally and trace this back to marbury versus madison and take that argument apart with some of the people who carry on this argument. we get into big, big trouble when we start establishing special rights for immuteable characteristics. if you look at title 7 of the civil rights act and i don't have it committed to memory, in title 7, there is protection for religion. but that is a specific constitutional protection in the
first amendment. beyond that, it's protection for immuteable characteristics, race, eggetnissity, i'm fine with disability, age. sex, gender is not. sexual orientation is not. when you go into that zone, you are giving special protective status for characteristics that cannot be independently identified and can at least be potentially willfully changed and that's a zone too blurry a zone for law and it's the zone then for our culture to accept and embrace people of all walks of life and recognize we all god's children and created in his image and ought to have these immuteable -- because of our immuteable characteristics they are tied to origins and our
rights do come from god and not from government and if we think the rights come from government, then it's ok for government to take our rights away. they don't come from government. our founding fathers understood that. in fact they articulated better than anyone ever had. they had a tough job. understand this divine right of humanity, natural law as they described it, they had to first understand it and articulate it and debate it amongst themselves. they reached a conkens us that got to the declaration and consensus that got to the ratification of the constitution. d we fought a gruesome and a ghastly civil war to put away the sin of slavery. and that also was a movement that came from the people of merica and the people of western civilization. it has been part of every
civilization back to the beginning. great britain was ahead of us. not many nations beat us to that punch. it was a consensus in america that ended that. so, mr. speaker, i'm making this point that this america that we are is built upon the pillars of american exceptionalism. those pillars are inherited from western civilization who go to europe, rome, greece, mosaic law and we have been wise enough to adopt those values from outside of western civilization that give us vitality like our english language has unique vitality. it's flexible. we are not stuck in time and place. there is a list of the new words that go into the dictionary because we create them to take care of the meaning we need.
daniel hannon, a member of the european parallelment from the united kingdom has written a book about how the english language -- i think of winston churchill's qul "history of the working people." i read that book forward and back and when i finished up, i look at the ceiling and 1:30 in the morning and i thought my gosh, wherever the english language has gone, freedom has accompanied the language. if churchill didn't write that in his book, but to me that was a conclusion that came to me, an inescapeable conclusion if you think like i do. he laid the case out without saying it that the english language has carried freedom. daniel hannon's book does further and he sits in the european parallelment and
multiling wall and will be listening to the interpreter while listening to another language in this ear and the language he gets interpreted into his ear doesn't necessarily carry out the same values and meaning. and his analysis is that the english language not only is a carrier of freedom, but it is a language that articulates freedom unique to any other. you can't understand god-given liberty without having an understanding of the english language that has such a utility in us carrying out talking about our values and liberty. liberty means something different than freedom. they just use that word universally. freedom is this, a wild coyote has freedom, he can jump the fences, but freedom is different. he has that freedom, but liberty
is brideled by morality. we have liberty in america. we are brideled by the morality of the obligation that we are a civilization and culture that is christianity and our values that are rooted in there as i said traceable back to mosaic law. we have to have morality in america if we are going to be an america that can achieve and go to soaring heights. revere our constitution and our rule of law and the people in this country, all of us who are part of this civilization, part of this culture, part of us that go out every day and do things to lift others up, scrub out some of the
things that aren't so great and elevate those things that are great and pull ourselves together, whether it's a mom and a child, a dad and a child, whether it's a church group, whether it's home school, public school, whether it's work, volunteer group, if you are out there handing out pamphlets to advance your cause and adding to the civil dialogue in america, keep a moral foundation behind it, add to that civil dial owing if we continue to do that and protect and understand and teach the values of america and in particular, the understanding of the original meaning of our constitution, we'll continue to be an even greater country. mr. speaker, i appreciate the privilege to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives and i'm privileged to serve here and privileged to have the opportunity to go home and carry out some of the things that i have talked about here in the last hour. and i yield back the balance of
directed by the house to inform the house that the senate passed h.r. 353, the weather research and forecast innovation act of 2017 in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thanks much, mr. speaker. and it is indeed a pleasure to follow my good friend from iowa, steve king. i know mr. king cares deeply about america and not only cares deeply, but having been in private sector in business where he, like our president, was involved in building things and making things work and making things accessible, he has good solutions and i have no doubt if
he were not in congress, he probably would have gotten a bid on the sections of the wall that the president is taking bids on even now. so we are in an interesting time and it has been interesting to see some of the messages, some the liberal know newspapers, they immediately pick up on any dissention in the republican party especially if it's aimed at conservatives like me. . i don't know why we use the term conservative. it used to be somebody with commonsense, that believed in keeping our word, that believed in following the constitution. we seem to get in trouble when we don't follow the constitution. for example, it makes very clear that everyone's supposed
to have rights, who is an american citizen. we can a-- we can't assure the rights of every person in every other country. that would soon end this remarkable experiment in a republican form of government that we have here. it's really a democratic republic. republic where you select representatives so that you don't have big gangs running around as a majority. wreaking havoc where people don't -- where people disagree with them. so we elect representatives so they can come together, they can hopefully read bills and not have to vote on them. so they can find out what's in them. go ahead and read the bills in advance. and hopefully have something to do with the writing of the bill. affect ly things that people's health. so when we see messages like
ave come out today, it's unpleasant. one that was apparently sent , t from the white house caucus ng the freedom apparently because we had the audacity to want republicans, including those at the white house, to keep our promise. i still remain in favor, as my friends on the freedom caucus and a lot of others, we remain committed to our promise to repeal obamacare. and i realize there can be honest disagreement. some think if we give more power to health and human services, just more government, more federal government, then give more power to the people we trust in the federal
government, whom i do trust, then they can do what congress is not willing to do. and that is repeal obamacare and have a system in place that will assure people can get health care that's affordable. the fact is that most people talk about, we got to make sure people can get health insurance . and then over the years they use the term health care synonymous with health insurance. actually the fact is we should be most concerned about people, all americans having access to affordable health care. whether they have insurance or not. one of the problems that health insurance has gotten into over the last 50 years is that health insurance has ceased to be insurance. and under obamacare, health insurance was certainly not
insurance. you look up the root of insurance, you look up the word insure, you know, insurance was you ed to be something could purchase very cheaply, that would insure against an unforeseeable event at some point in the future, maybe a catastrophic accident, a disease, chronic disease. something that you don't expect and you hope never happens. and the insurance companies -- it's actually a form of legalized wager. you're paying a little amount, hoping that never happens. but just in case it does, insurance will be able to take care of it at that point. but we've long since lost the idea of true insurance. and people began paying insurance, health insurance
companies, not to insure against an unforeseeable event in the future, but to pay them to manage their health care, to tell their doctors what medication they can prescribe, what procedures they would cover to help their patients, telling the patients which doctors they could see. and actually the truth is, as the federal government got more and more involved, we saw less and less insurance and more and more insurance companies managing people's health care. and the managing insurance companies were actually following the lead of the federal government. the more laws we passed regarding health care and insurance, the more the federal government had a say in people's health care and well-being. and the more insurance
companies moved into a management role, much as the federal government in medicare and medicaid moved into a governing role. and this morning, i've just met with constituents that are very caring individuals. and they provide health centers that are extremely affordable, very, very cheap. but provide quality care for people that can't afford the care. and they don't have to go to the emergency room, which costs , e than going to a clinic for minor matters. it saves a lot of money. it's a lot cheaper. and of course emergency room care is about the most expensive care you can get. and people that don't have insurance, they often go line up at emergency rooms which drives up the cost of
everybody's health care and everybody's health insurance. so we can break the cycle of that. i understand there are very well-meaning friendses on the republican side of the aisle that think -- friends on the republican side of the aisle that think, if we just give the federal government, give health and human services more power to control all of this, we have a guy in place that i do believe can do great things to cure the ills of health care. my problem is, if we don't as al the outrage known obamacare or the affordable care act, which is really unaffordable, if we don't actually repeal it here in the house, have the senate repeal it, then no matter how much those in the executive branch and those in health and human
services, including my friend, the secretary, no matter how , ch they do to help americans the next liberal that comes in, the next kathleen sebelius who comes in thinking she knows more of what's best for you than you do, then all of those great reforms will go out the window and because the secretary will have more authority and more ability to make regulation under the republican proposed bill, then i'm quite certain that somebody that comes in like sebelius, that knows better what you need than do you, will make sure that the regular -- than you do, will make sure that the regulations and the overreach becomes even more burdensome. i totally understand the president's frustration. he was told that the republican
bill would basically repeal obamacare and the truth is, i totally agree with the president. we need to act to repeal obamacare and i stand with the president through whatever . rdship to repeal obamacare but -- and i've heard people already referring to the republican bill as swampcare. there are some good things in the bill. that appears to analysts i trust, have a reputation for being accurate, that premiums will go up. that this bill is not going to really bring down health care -- or health insurance costs and that they may go up for the next got years. but hopefully -- two years. but hopefully in 2019, after
republicans have lost the majority because we didn't keep our promise, they're projecting that in 2019 the prices will go down, maybe 10% if everything works out well. and that would be good for the new democratic majority because they've taken office and they'll get all the credit for costs coming down, even though it's very slightly. they'll get the credit and republicans will be left out to dry, which means the american dream, freedom, entrepreneurism, the ability to decide what health care you need when, without government telling you otherwise. or an insurance company telling you otherwise. that dream of personal independence will be gone. d you will see a new america
that begins to reflect the values of the former soviet union. which, anybody that studies history like i majored in, like i never quit studying, you know there has never, ever been a time when socialism succeeded. it always has failed. it always will fail. even the apostle paul's effort, you know, we're going to bring in the common store house share and share alike. eventually he realized his error. it's going to work in heaven. not going to work here. so new rule. if you don't work, you don't eat. the pilgrims, such a beautiful compact, bring into the common store house, share and share alike. but after so many died that first winter, they realized, you know, maybe it will work out better if we just let people have private property and they get to keep, use however they want, whatever they produce. what a great idea. and that kind of entrepreneurism, that kind of
encouragement and incentive in this world for people to do well, to control their own destiny, is what made america the greatest country in the history of the world. now, as we proceeded over the years, we've moved toward more and more socialism, especially in the last 50 years, we've now allowed people like -- people to take over our education alpha silts -- educational facilities. and they have been successful. i understand a 30%, 40% -- i understand 30%, 40% of young people coming out of college today think that socialism would be a good thing. well, it would be in a perfect world. where everybody worked as hard as they could and then shared and shared alike. but we've seen in this world that will never work. the only way socialism remains as long as it does, as it did in the soviet union, is if you have a very ruthless totalitarian government that takes people's freedom away,
but even then it's all going to be for nothing. but we had an article from mark miller in reuters. the title is, republican health reform is the real disaster for older americans. one of the things i got to say, mr. speaker, i was hoping in our bill, since we know, we've talked about all these years, since obamacare passed, that it . t $716 billion from medicare seniors need help. they are beginning to experience rationed health care the way the v.a. has been administering to our veterans for too long. hopefully we'll get that fixed. i don't know the person that president trump appointed to head up the v.a. she' been part of the v.a. system. so i'm concerned she may not be le to deliver on
re-energizing the v.a., to actually help veterans. but with all the problems that have existed across the veterans administration, which are a clear example of what happens when a federal government takes complete charge of a medical system, and with all the veterans we have in record numbers committing suicide -- because they just feel so hopeless. they feel like there's nowhere to turn. the v.a. doesn't help them. they've got nowhere to turn. and they do take that irreversible step of hopelessness. and people that are seeing that in the v.a. now are coming and saying, we want the federal government to have more control over people's health care. kind of like the v.a.
you know. because that's such a good thing. do we need more people killing themselves in the general society? at the levels of our precious veterans? i mean, let's take care of our veterans. let's drop that to zero for veterans. and let's work on it for the general population. i do believe that the bill that my friend, dr. tim murphy, helped push through did such a great job on, bipartisan, we had people on both sides of the i'll working fervently -- aisle working fervently on that bill. i think we'll be able to do some good. for 30 years or so, the pendulum swung too far against people getting the mental health care they needed. so the good to see that change. . but this will bill, i left at the end of last week, and i know a lot of people were down and i was in part, but the other side was, i really felt like this was
going to be a good week, we were going to come together, we were going to discuss and find a way to come together. and i thought on tuesday, monday evening, as i saw our leadership getting together with members of our party, i thought, yeah, i bet we could get something by the end of the week and i got the feeling most the republicans felt if we don't have a bill we can agree on and get passed for the good of the american people, let's actually take steps -- ok, our leadership says we can't repeal obamacare. let's repeal as much as we can and repeal as much as we did two years ago and not give more power to health and human services. let's take out some of the requirements from obamacare that have caused premiums to skyrocket. and we are told, trust h.h.s.,
because they will be able to help bring down premiums so we don't have to take that action in this body ourselves. and for all of those who were ignorant and didn't understand, the freedom caucus was trying to reach an agreement so that we could vote out a bill out of this house. but those of us in the freedom caucus all had heard over and over from constituents you have got to do something to bring down the costs of our health insurance, of our health care, our deductibles are too high, we will never be able to get insurance help. our premiums are so high. i heard from business people that their costs have tripled in the few years and cannot afford to stay in business and keep paying their high premiums for their employees and will have to
leave them high and dry, which means they go to medicaid. and i'm shocked that people in the obama administration would brag about adding millions of people to medicaid, which has not been the help that people needed. they -- we were told that obamacare will drive them to great insurance. no, it's driven millions to medicaid, that's even worse than medicare. so i know most of the republicans on this side of the aisle believe that the states, so many states have good solutions. so what is our solution to help the states? gee, if we give more power to the federal government, then they could start a high risk pool that will be able to pull people out of the insurance policies where premiums are spiking and then the federal
government will run that for a while and then did he involve it back to the -- deinvolve it back to the states. in my time in congress and my time on the bench as a judge and chief justice, i have watched government and i just don't trust government. that was something i shared with our founders. and that was something justice scalia told to a group from my home in tyler. there were probably 50 or 60 seniors came up and i asked is there something you would like to see or do while you are here, and they said you are friends with justice scalia, do you think we can meet him. i'll ask. justice scalia found the time and met him over the supreme court and he said what questions do you want to ask.
he didn't start with a speech. what questions you got? and he leaned back against the table and nobody said -- he said, come on, i have taken time meet meow you wanted to and i liked how he was straight to the point. he said come on, have the courage, ask the question. one of our seniors said, justice scalia, would you say the united states is the most free country in the history of the world because of our bill of rights, that it's the best ever? and justice scalia surprised me, but then i thought, well, yeah, he is exactly right. he said the soviets had a lot more rights. no. no. the reason we are the most free country in the world is because the founders did not trust government. so they gave us a constitution
that tried to put as many obstacles as it possibly could between people in washington at the time, first new york, philadelphia, then washington. but people at the federal level creating laws, they wanted it as hard as possible. that's why the president is not a prime minister selected by the congress, we have three branches instead of one or two. they wanted to make it hard to pass laws. and he went into further deliberation on that, very informative. i studied the soviet government and i remembered in college when i was at texas a&m, i did a paper and got an a on it about the soviet constitution, the soviet rights. they did have more rights spelled out. but the trouble is their founders wanted government to do
things and trust government implicitly, so it was a totalitarian and the bill of rights they had meant nothing. that's where we are headed with. it's with bureaucrats having taken charge over people's lives, health care, their financial situations, getting copies of people's finance records, used to have to get a warrant to do that. now the consumer finance protection bureau gets them when they want to. that should be illegal and should be unconstitutional and should require a warrant and probable cause that a crime. i used to sign warrants if probable cause was established. not anymore. under obama, the congress, democratic congress passed a law saying yeah, let them do whatever they want to help us, somehow help us with our
financial situation. well, you combine with what they have done and c.i.a. and justice department has done to invade people's rights, we are several limited in the privacy we once had. i know there were people were shocked that congress passed a bill regarding internet privacy rights, but the fact is -- and our party should have done a better job of getting the message out, it just repealed the instrution that the obama administration had with regulation and got us back to where we were a few years ago. so there's still protections, it's just not the intrusiveness of the federal government that president obama created. some of us were convinced that he was not as concerned with privacy rights as we were or as others in america were. and he was not as concerned
about the united states' control of the internet as we were, because he gives away the ability to do web sites to an international group instead of trusting the united states. president obama didn't trust the united states to be fair to the world. those of us in congress felt at least on our side of the aisle thought we would do a better job. i still think we will do a better job. but what has been heartbreaking the last day and a half, doesn't appear that republican leaders are trying to work with onservatives to get to a solution. we now seen the solution is, go to war with those who want to stand on the constitution, contact everybody who donates to the national republican congressional committee, the national republican party, contact the big donors who
donate to candidates and make sure they send messages to all the republicans that they better get on board and vote for a bill that those people who are calling never read, like some of us have, that they didn't research. they're just trusting the people they have been done ating to, to do the right thing. if that were the case, republicans would have repealed obamacare a long time ago and would have been the first thing we took up in january. and we would never have had obamacare because republicans would have stopped it when we did have the chance and we had multiple chances, but that's another story for another day. so i'm sorry. this bill is going to ultimately result in republicans losing the majority, but that's not my number one concern. yes, it bothers me that i think
this bill could lose to our loss of the majority in 2018 and yes it concerns me that from what i'm hearing from friends across the aisle, the first thing they want to do if they get the majority in 2018 is impeach and remove from office dodged trump. it has been amazing to see it develop the last day and a half that those in october who stood with the president, when our leaders were saying forget trump, our numbers are clear, he has no chance of winning, so our best hope is to every member, republican member save yourself, win your election so when hillary clinton is president next january, we can in the house rein her in. i'm glad that the rank and file of our party stood fast and said no. if trump doesn't win, we aren't
going to rein president hillary clinton. she'll do whatever she wants. impeach t get to koskinen when he clearly lied to us and other members in obama administration cabinet lied. nd we couldn't get to remove perjuring people from the cabinet. hopefully we will get documents the kind of crimes that were being committed. people are hurting and need their premiums to come down and we can trust health and human services and this administration to try to bring down costs. but the words of my late friend justice scalia, if you guys in congress have the power to repeal a bad bill don't have the guts to do it, don't come running across the street to us
asking us to repeal. go to the floor and repeal the bad law and leave us alone. that's all i'm asking, mr. speaker. the courts have not worked out extremely well for people that love the constitution in recent years. and i know the president's frustrated not nearly as frustrated as i am, almost, maybe. and i'm told that some of these anti-freedom caucus tweets were originated with his chief of staff, mr. priebus, but i want to suggest as same rayburn did when he was speaker, my friends, mr. speaker, the republican brothers and sisters are not your enemy. they're your friends. they want to repeal obamacare.
bring down costs. get more control back to people and if this bill -- if we pass a bill that doesn't bring down premiums and give the american people hope and not give more power to the government and hope they do a better job in this administration, then we will deserve to be voted out. i just hope, mr. speaker, we will do what we promised to do. i hope those who are getting calls and emails demanding they call their representatives if they have big donors tell their congressman to get on board with the bill, i hope they will trust us that we are reading bills on their behalf. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: i would move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the