tv U.S. House of Representatives 12072017 CSPAN December 7, 2017 4:15pm-6:47pm EST
to be excited about. sad in many respects, but, yeah, we are pleased with the way we expeditiously dealt with our issue. i don't see it as a political issue, though. i see it as a community -- i -- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> back now to the house, gaveling back in quickly. a final series of votes for the day. passing of h.r. 477, passage of house joint resolution 123, and the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2658. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on passage of h.r. 477 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 318, h.r. 477, a bill to amend the securities exchange
act of 1934 to exempt from registration brokers performing services in connection with the transfer of ownership of small privately held companies. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 426. the nays are zero. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on passage of house joint resolution 123 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 123, joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the joint resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235rks the nays are 193. without objection, the joint resolution is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. he house will be in order. members will take their see hes. the house will come -- take their seats. the house will come to order.
proceedings will start when the house is in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of making a scheduling announcement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i first want to thank all the members for their flexibility in coming back to town this past monday. as such, members are advised that votes are no longer expected in the house tomorrow, friday, december 8. members are further advised to be prepared for the house to be
in session the week of december 18. first votes of that week will be expected at 6:30 p.m. on monday, december 18. we all know we have important work to do, including passing historic tax cuts and job act for the american people. -- and jobs act for the american people. i think that will be an excellent christmas present. if there are any further changes to our schedule, i'll be sure to let all members know. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. i can't hear. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. he house will be in order. mr. mccarthy: if there's any further changes to the schedule, i'll be sure to let all members know. i'll yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the majority leader for yielding. normally, of course, we would have a scheduling discussion tomorrow. at the end of business. but in light of the fact that we are not meeting tomorrow, we
will not have that colloquy. account leading give us some indication of -- can the leader give us some indication of what might be considered next week? as we know, there are numerous items that need to be resolved before we leave here this year. and we need to obviously have some b.c.a., the budget control act, numbers arrived at so that the appropriations committee can move forward either on an omnibus or appropriation bills. we need to do flood insurance. we need to do fisa section 702. we need to do obviously children's health insurance program. and other matters. can the leader who has just said that we will be in -- is he anticipating four days next week? four days next week? and presumably four days or five the following week? so let's say we have nine legislative days. can the leader give us some idea
of how we might accomplish the work that needs to be done in that time frame? and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i will miss the colloquy tomorrow. i do look forward to that. always speaking with my friend. as the gentleman knows, the rules committee have met, so you will see the financial service bill that they met upon. you will also get a list of all the suspensions. they will be at close of business tomorrow. but the gentleman is right. there is a lot of work to be done. we have passed chip going forward. as the gentleman knows, in this, the bill that we just voted on, for those who voted yes, it continued funding for them as it went through the year, for the rest of this year. and as the gentleman knows, this house has passed all 12 appropriation bills. so we have more work to get done. now, knowing my friend is concerned coming from the appropriations committee as well , i'd hope you'd join with us. we would like the senate to take
some action. i know our leadership has just visited with the president, with both sides of the aisle. i hope we can come to an agreement so we can finish this out. i also hope the gentleman would join with me in encouraging the senate, just not on the appropriation bill, but the 352 bills that we have out of this house sitting over there. and the part that the american people must know, most of that bill had very broad bipartisan support. so i am looking forward to a busy nine days. it will not come up next week. but if it could, i would bring it up as soon as we come out of conference. because i do believe the american people are waiting for a tax cut and a jobs act to continue what we've gone through. nd i yield back. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i hear the majority leader's hope that we'll move appropriations bills on the
senate side. obviously one of the things that we've been trying to work on for the last 90 days, mr. leader, has been trying to get to an agreement on the numbers that will replace the sequester numbers that certainly many people on your side don't want for the defense side of the budget. and obviously we believe that we had an agreement over the last four years for parody in spending. we would hope that we can reach an agreement similar to that agreement. and furthermore, mr. leader, i am sure that mr. mcconnell, the majority leader, could bring appropriation bills to the floor. he has not done that. we don't control the senate. those bills have not been brought to the floor. you can't pass them if they aren't brought to the floor. furthermore, mr. speaker, they need to be bipartisan bills the se the history is that
majority party, mr. speaker, has not been able to get a majority of votes. you did today. but the history is, since 2011, that has not happened. and therefore failing that, you need to work in a bipartisan fashion, mr. speaker. the senate does. in order to get these bills done. in addition, i won't go into all the pieces of legislation that are pending, that need to pass for the welfare of our country and the security of our country. and the assistance to our people. so i would hope that we could proceed and proceed now. and frankly, i'm available tomorrow, mr. leader. and i'm sure others are, to start talking about how we reach agreement on these critical issues. because nine days, as we all know, is not very much time. we've had 90 days. we unanimously voted for continuing c.r..
90 of your members voted against it. it passed because of our -- the speaker pro tempore: the house in order. -- the house will be in order. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i say respectfully, the reason we got 90 days to hopefully reach agreement on a number of critical issues, critical to us, and i think critical to you, was because every one of us on this side of the aisle voted for the c.r. 90 of your people voted against it. it could never have gotten to a majority. but for our votes. so i would hope that now that we have another two weeks, that we start sitting down together, reaching agreement, and are prepared next week to start voting on bipartisan bills that both sides can support. neither side will get all it wants. but that is the way, i think,
that this house will proceed as a credit to the house and a credit to the american people. mr. mccarthy: will the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i'd be glad to yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: the gentleman is right. we have a great deal amount of work. we just voted on a bill that i will guarantee you 221 members on this side that carried it was not the bill they were seeking. they do not want to look at the troops and say they're not funded and they're not getting their pay raise that we voted on earlier. and the gentleman, my friend, has told me time and again, funding government is not a game. there was nothing in the bill that we just passed that both sides could not say that it was a bipartisan bill. there was nothing on our side of the aisle that we put into that bill that would give anybody on either side heartache. but it was not a bill that we should have to have voted on on this floor.
we did 12 appropriation bills. we should not be voting for continuing resolutions. that's not why we're elected. so let's do this. as we -- >> order. >> order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. mccarthy: as we make our travels back, knowing that we'll be back next week, let's make a commitment to one another. let's make a commitment to this country that we will get our work done, that we will find the common ground, that we will not whip against a bill just to try to shut the government down, but we'll find the very best that this body could come to conclusion with. and that means funding our troops and i look forward to working with all of you in the coming weeks and i yield back to my friend. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. my presumption is that the chairman of the armed services committee who voted against the
c.r. in september did not do it because he wasn't for funding the trooms. did not do it because he didn't want to protect the security of our country. did not do it because he wanted to shut down the government. i presume. none of us did either. we did it because we are very concerned about the fact that 90 days ago we voted for a c.r. that was noncontroversial, notwithstanding the fact that 90 of your side voted against it. . the president agreed to it. you agreed to it. i agreed to it. we had an agreement. but the fact of the matter we have not used those 90 days productive inly in a bipartisan way to get to constructive resolutions of these issues. and i agree with the gentleman. we ought to do that, and i will pledge to the gentleman that i will and my leadership here and our members will come at least 50% of the way. you're in charge.
you have the responsibility. we understand that, but as we have in the past, almost every time, whether it was speaker boehner or speaker ryan, it was this side of the aisle that ept the government open. it was this side of the aisle that made sure we didn't efault on our debts. so, mr. leader, i want to be constructive. i don't want to argue further on this. it is to say, however, to all of us -- i talked to some of your members privately. they're shaking their heads. why are we in this position? we ought not to be in this position. and every one of us that sits in this body, every one of us ought to be saying to ourselves, we need to act constructively. this is -- confrontation is not constructive. the failure to reach agreement. schip. we passed
we agreed on the authorizing side. unfortunately we couldn't agree on the funding side because you wanted to cut things we ought not to be cut. clearly we would have gotten to an agreement. in fact, you passed a bill on ipab, $17.6 billion unpaid for that would have paid for all of that. all of that. so mr. leader, i will yield to if you want but i just plead with every one of the members of the body, this is not good for the american people. you say you don't want a c.r. you had 90 days to come to an agreement with us or with yourselves. you have 218 votes. ou just showed us. i yield to my friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mccarthy: not continue debate because i know people have places to go but you said we need 218 to show it.
we just showed 221. but the one thing i will tell you, when you talk about bipartisan, when you talked about that c.r., 133 on this side voted for it. more than the majority of the majority. that's where bipartisanship comes. i can sit back and we can rehash how many times we met about schip. we can rehash coming to you saying, tell me where you want to go at the end of the day. we can rehash where your ranking member asked us to pull back on the markup and we did, but they still never came. i don't need to rewrite history, and i don't need to walk away from where we tried to get to. i'm proud of the fact that we were able to pass it with or without you but we wanted you with us. you made the decision not to be with us, and that's ok. that's your decision. but today when you talked and bragged about all the other times you were there, my only question is, what's different today? let's not make today continue for the future.
let's find the way that we work together, but at the end of the day when they look back in history, there will be 221 on this side, there will be 175 on the other side that said government should shut down and i don't think that's right. i yield back and hope you have a good weekend. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. i didn't hear -- i didn't hear -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i didn't hear my friend saying that when john boehner -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: eric cantor and the ip asked for votes to keep government open. they got 84 of their colleagues on your side of the aisle to join them, making a total of 87, and the majority of your members voted against your own leadership on the bill that they were proposing. so don't lecture me about voting no. i voted no because i think we should not have had a c.r.
i voted no because there are too many things left undone. i voted no because the american people expect us to get our work done, not to twiddle our humbs while rome is burning. mr. speaker, i yield back the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind all members to direct their comments to the chair and not to each other. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. royce, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2658 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2658, a bill to provide humanitarian assistance for the venezuelan people to defend democratic governance and combat widespread public
corruption in venezuela and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 387. the nays are 29. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are uspended -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 388, the nays are 29. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 4300 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: union calendar bill 332, h.r. 4300, a to authorize pacific historic parks to establish a commemorative display for the united states armed forces who served during the pambing theater in world war ii, and for other purposes -- during the pacific theater in world war ii, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the bill is read a third time, passed and is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourns to meet on monday next and 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 minnesota seek recognition? the house will come to order. members, take their onversations off the floor.
the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the gentleman from idina high school. every year the congressional app challenge encourages students to create an original app by writing computer code. the competition inspires students across the country to explore computer science, stem fields, it fosters innovation and promotes involvement by some who are historically under-represented in tech fields. mr. paulsen: jack won this year's competition by designing an app called a time that are blocks distracting websites on the user's computer for short periods of time. i'd also like to recognize madilla who won runner-up for creating an app that helps young people, young adult, find jobs in their communities. and zar and omar -- zara and omar were both honorable mentions for their apps. mr. speaker, these students have
shown ingenuity, imagination, intellectual curiosity and their incentive talent will take them far. i congratulate them on their achievement and wish them the best in their future academics. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition ? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. payne: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the shabazz high school bulldogs football team for winning their state championship against the other team. these schools, both in my neighborhood, and in my district, have been rivals since 1938. this is the second year in a row that they have gone head-to-head in the championship. but this year shabazz beat the other team with a score of 35-0. to win the state championship
for north jersey section ii group one. the shabazz bulldogs had a perfect season, finishing the year with a 12-0 record. it was their first perfect season since 1966. the shabazz bulldogs were led to victory by coach darnell grant whose brother coached the hillside high school college football team to its state championship this year as well. both teams are in my district. i ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating coach grant and the shabazz high school bulldogs football team for their perfect year in sports this weekend. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to plead on behalf of our country for immediate senate action on
the resilient federal forest act of 2017. the house passed this bipartisan bill on november 1, following a record wildfire season, with millions of acres going up in smoke and ash. just this week fires have flared up again in southern california with more than 110,000 acres currently burning and more than 200,000 individuals forced from their homes. many schools are closed, residents hundreds of miles away are advised to stay indoors to avoid the smoke and more urgently lives and property are at risk across los angeles and ventura counties. the time for the senate to act was two years ago when they failed to act on similar legislation. we can't afford for the senate to continue to do nothing. pass the resilient federal forest act, give the forest service the tools it needs to prevent and combat catastrophic wildfires. fires are raging, lives are in danger and the situation will get worse in the future if the senate continues to fail to act. mr. westerman: and i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom virginia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. mceachin: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to honor a fellow virginian, richard, who is in the midst of transitioning his law practice into, quote, becoming one of the boys, closed quote, again. richard is a dedicated public servant who has served our great commonwealth in different capacities during his long standing career at both the federal and state levels. he was raised in stanton, virginia, located in our state's shenandoah valley, and completed his education at university of richmond's t.c. williams school of law where he served as the editor in chief of the school's law review. richard began his career at the federal level with former congressman butler of the sixth congressional district. he continued to serve virginians at the state level where he was
appointed in 1991 as the united states attorney for the eastern district of virginia. richard also served at the state level from 1997 to 1998 as the attorney general of virginia. he is a virginian's virginian who values his community. on behalf of our great commonwealth, we thank richard for his continued service and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from wyoming seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. cheney: mr. speaker, on this historic day in this chamber, where president roosevelt appeared the day after the pearl harbor attack, i rise to honor a world war ii veteran and pearl harbor survivor, mr. clarence barrows, who will turn 100 this weekend. born on december 10, 1917, mr. barows has served our country and state in many ways. as a member of the u.s. navy, mr. barows fought through and
survived the attack on pearl harbor. he risked his life in the defense of freedom as a gunnar on the u.s.s. hyde, transport magazine are ins in the pacific theater -- transporting marines in the pacific theater. he went on to dedicate 30 years of his life to the union pacific railroad. i want to thank him for all he's contributed to our great nation and state. his sacrifice, bravery and grit are an example to us all and i look forward to congratulating mr. barows in person at celebrations in his honor this weekend in cheyenne. i'd like to say happy birthday to mr. barows and thank you for his service. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to once again vigorously and unrelentingly oppose offshore oil and gas exploration in the eastern gulf of mexico.
i know this is an imperfect graphic, but what i've got here is a map of the gulf of mexico showing the military mission line, longitude 86 degrees, 41 minutes. where the military doesn't want offshore drilling east of it and neither do we citizens of florida. this big blob here is where the oil companies want to go get oil and gas and tear up our gulf of mexico. and change our coast from high quality residential development to things like this. uge offsource -- steel-sourced vessels. this is santa bell lighthouse. we don't want to see a commercial vessel like this in santa bell lighthouse. for this do we want to see one in the gordon river of naples surrounded by beautiful homes, trees, second homes of retirees that have come to naples to make it their home. this scene could be replicated in fort myers as well. we can't let our coast be changed irreparably by
industrialization to support unnecessary offshore drilling. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor joe george, a sailor who showed exceptional bravery during the attack on pearl harbor. joe defied direct orders from his superior officer and saved the lives of six men trapped on the embattled u.s.s. arizona. mr. speaker, for years joe's family and two veterans he saved have petitioned the navy to acknowledge his bravery. i first heard his story from war saw, indiana, middle school students -- warsaw, indiana, middle school students and their advisor regarding the national history day project. i introduced a resolution that highlights joe's courage and calls for the navy to recognize his selfless actions during the attack. mr. speaker, i am pleased that
the navy has recently announced that joe george will be posthumously awarded the bronze star for his heroism. mr. banks: joe george is an american hero and a shining example of the courage of the greatest generation. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one-minute speeches? hearing none, under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from virginia, mr. garrett, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. garrett: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to address this chamber and indeed america about the challenges that we face at this time in our country. there are many, some exist within this nation, some exist overseas, and some have many answers being batted around in washington, whereas others have nearly none. one of those challenges that has hamstrung our young estrogen
ration is the massive -- youngest generation is the massive cloud of student loan debt. when our colleague, senator sanders, from the other side of the aisle addressed student loan debt during the presidential campaign last year, he was correct in identifying a provepblet the way he chose to address it i would disagree with. as he suggested that we should provide for people something from the government, and i would suggest that the people should provide for themselves. there are two schools of thought. one that the government relies -- one, that the government -- or that the people rely on the government and one, that the government should rely on the people. how do you address dreast this massive black cloud -- how do you this massive black cloud of student debt? that's something that we've started to do today with the filing of h.r. 4584rks the student security act. so i speak to you tonight, to speak about a brighter future, a future where individuals are empowered to make decisions for themselves and where they can escape this looming cloud of
debt so they might be free to do things that we have here taken for granted in this country. like buy a new car. like start a family. in the words of former presidential candidate hillary clinton, move out of mom and dad's basement. but the most important thing that they're not able to do because of the black cloud of debt that faces them, mr. speaker, i would submit is harness the creativity and the energy that is embodied by their ideas. this is a nation of ideas. and certainly when you are encumbered with over $40,000 of loan debt per person on average, you're not able to get that small business loan. you're not able to start that new business. but those idea -- put those ideas into action and create jobs. in fact, a recent poll last month indicated that the majority of millennials would sacrifice their very franchise,
that is their right to vote in exchange for relief from their student loan development and all too often the words student debt in the halls of washington have scared up images of free college. anyone knows. even mr. sanders knows that nothing is free. someone pays. but that's no excuse to ignore the problem. why not allow vids the option and opportunity to pay their own debt? over 40 million americans, myself included, are paying back $1.3 trillion in student debt. and yet we've done nothing realistic to address this problem. and how do you address new problems? you must address new problems with new ideas. and so it is h.r. 4584, the student security act, that is just that. let's take a moment to think, a young man, eliott harding, a student or a recent student from charlottesville, virginia, who came to me with the idea, this idea. said, what do we do as a nation if we lose the creativity of an entire generation because of this burdensome debt?
because that's what we're on the precipice of. i contemplated it and decided that this is something that i wasn't able to let ham on -- happen on my watch. result, i was all years -- ears as he explained the idea that became student security and it is as follows. right now we know that the social security plan that our seniors, indeed my very mother, rely upon to get by on a day to day basis is facing an imminent bankruptcy. that solvency is in question. and that by 2034, according to most estimates, there will be no solvency. that's a problem too. many of you at home are wondering how i move from student loan debt to social security and that is the beauty of this idea. to empower individuals to make decisions for themselves and address these very real challenges, the student security act would allow a student to write off $550 of student loan debt for every month that they were willing to voluntarily
forego a social security benefit. the time value of money, my friends. we have forced no one to do anything. we have in no way, shape or form changed one scintilla of the promise that is social security, that we've made for generations to our seniors, but at the same time we have provided an 11% increase of the solvency of that program. extending the life of that promise, without raising taxes and without forcing a single soul to do a single thing against their will. that would translate into $6,600 pursuant to per year that they were willing to voluntary forego receipt of social security benefits. the bill would cap at a max musm $40,150 in debt release. this would correspondent to a six-year delay in receipt of social security benefits and, again, no one would be forced to do a thing. but students who sought to remove from their lives the
black cloud of student loan debt would be empowered to, at their own discretion, make this decision for themselves. and as they say in the tv world, but wait. there's more. we ran this we ran this program passed the budget office and the social security administration. what would the impact of social security be of empowering people to make decisions for themselves? and by the way, how would we defray the cost as to people who are young now and won't invest into social security later versus the facts they are students now? the numbers are not good, they are great. we would allow them to avail their grandchildren or children of these benefits should they choose to defer, should they choose to defer social security amount ben fits to the amount of $40,150 -- benefits to the amount of $40,150. that would immediately begin.
that would save the social security administration $700 billion while also addressing with the very real needs of american students currently hamstrung by a broken college finance system. so what do we do with the student security act? we're delighted to welcome congressman ferguson, congressman brat, rokita, messer. we invite our colleagues from both sides of the aisle to look at this jouds the box dynamic new way to address the solvency of social security and the insolvency of our youngest, most creative generation. the data says we would extend the viability of the social security program of 11% what's made to be wholly solvent for perpetuity. that would be the equivalent of a .3% in the payroll increase without a pay increase and without taking anything from anyone without their voluntary
entry into the program. it would lift the black cloud of student loan death to the tune of over $40,000 per person in the world where 90% of debtors have less than $40,000 in debt and it would return to the coffers of this indebted nation by the social security administration's estimates ,,000,,000, .7 -- thousand. housand, .7%. do you believe that people should rely on government or government should rely on people? do you believe that this country can harness the ideas and the vision and the energy of what is inherently the most creative generation, always?
if we are able to free these young people from burdensome debt that stops them from engaging in key life events, like buying a home and buying a car and getting married and starting a business, and do you believe we need to think outside the box to ensure we keep the promise that is social security that has been made in this country for generations? if you, like me, believe this and you are a member, i invite ou to join as a patron on h.r. 4584, regardless of your party affiliation or ideology. if you, like me, as a citizen believe this is a good idea, i invite you to speak to your representatives. mr. speaker, this is an opportunity not only to change how we do business but to empower people to empower themselves, to create greater opportunity and prosperity in this country by harnessing the energy and ideas of our
youngest and largest living generation and to keep the promise that we've made for generation after generation to people like my mother that social security will remain relyable and solvent. again -- reliable and solvent. again, i invite you to join on this legislation or contact your representative and encourage them to. h.r. 4584, the student security act, is a new way of addressing an old problem that relies on the oldest solution and that is individuals empowered to work for themselves. with that i'd yield back the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
mr. speaker, thank you very kindly. i'm delighted to be here on behalf of the congressional progressive caucus. we are going to have some discussion about recent developments in congress over this week, and we're going to focus on the proposed tax legislation. we're going to begin with the vice chair of the congressional progressive caucus, congresswoman jayapal from the great state of washington and she's going to talk about what this plan means for working people in america. ms. jayapal: thank you so much, mr. raskin, for your leadership, your continued leadership in our caucus. it's such a pleasure to serve next to you on the judiciary committee and we have a lot of work to do and it's really terrific to be able to do it
with you to talk about the tax plan. i don't think this is a tax plan. i think it's a tax scam. i think it's a heist. i think that the middle class in this country is not going to benefit from this. middle class americans that are hoping for a tax break for the holidays are going to be sorely disappointed. maybe a few lumps of coal that they get. and in fact, polling shows across the country that this is the singularly most unpopular bill that congress has considered in a very long time. 75% of americans across this country don't think it's a good idea, and you know, they're not fooled by the promises that are being made about what this bill does. let's really talk about what this bill does. we know that the wealthiest will benefit. the wealthiest 1% will receive 50% of the tax cuts. and in 2019, 18% of the tax
cuts in this bill will go to the wealthiest 1%. but by 2027, that number climbs to 62% with an average tax cut of $33,000. what else do we know about this bill? we know that the largest corporations will benefit. to pay for this massive tax cut for corporations, the senate tax bill would repeal the individual mandate part of the affordable care act, something that republicans have tried to do over and over again this year. the american people have spoken up and said, no, we know that health care is a right, not a privilege. we want our health care. we know the affordable care act is not perfect, but it has done much to protect the health care of people across this country. and yet in spite of that, now the individual mandate, the repeal of the individual mandate has been put into the senate tax bill, and it would result in 13 million people
more being uninsured. it would also result in a 10% increase in premiums for americans across the country, according to the congressional budget office. and we know also that this bill is wholly fiscally irresponsible. and it's funny, for years republicans have yelled and screamed about deficit. the huge deficits that we have, and yet this bill would add between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion in deficits to what we already have. and that would lead to a mandatory cut in critical programs. but let's just talk for a minute about what exactly this tax scam will mean for ordinary americans across the country. in order to pay for the tax cuts that we've talked about for the wealthiest and the largest corporations, it means that millions of working
families and poor folks across this country are going to end up paying more. not only that, there are incentives in this bill that would actually create an incentive for american companies to take jobs off of main street, close factories here in the united states, and move those jobs overseas. it will make it harder for families to make ends meet. the senate bill would raise taxes on 78 million middle-class families, and millions of families across the country would lose their health care. in my district alone, nearly 31,000 constituents would lose their health care. this bill would also put real roadblocks in the way of young people looking to get ahead. you know, two of the eliminations of tax exemptions in this tax bill that offend me the most and should offend all americans across the country
are, number one, there's essentially a tax on being sick. there's a tax on long-term care for americans across this country. right now if you have a family member who's in long-term care or has a serious illness, the expenses that you pay for that individual, for that family member, you can deduct those medical expenses. with this tax scam, the tax heist that's being proposed, you would no longer be able to deduct those medical expenses. so you're being taxed for being ill or for needing care as you get older. but in addition, we're taxing education. we already know that there's $1.4 trillion in student loan debt across this country. more than even credit card debt in this country. young people have to make these terrible choices about whether they're going to go into debt $80,000 or whether they're going to get -- whether they're just not going to go and get a higher education. that is wrong, and this bill,
this tax bill would actually take away some of the tax benefits that we give to graduate students, for example, when they get help to be able to complete their graduate education. it would take away the exemption that currently exists. if you're a teacher and you buy pencils or paper or supplies for your classroom, that is currently a deductible expense. it would take that away for teachers but not for corporations. if corporations buy supplies, that's tax deductible but not if you're a teacher. that is just crazy. it prioritizes the wealthy by allowing wealthy families to avoid the estate tax. let's talk about the estate tax for just a minute. the estate tax is 5,400 families across the country that pay that. very, very small number of the wealthiest families, but in fact what this does is it says, no, that's even too much. we're going to double the exemption, so now $11 million,
even fewer families will pay that, but it will cost middle-class families a couple hundred billion dollars in revenue. the experts across the spectrum are arriving at the same conclusion. this bill is bad for regular working families. the national association of realtors has said this -- the senate tax bill puts home values at risk and dramatically undercuts the incentive to own a home. our estimates show that home values stand to fall by an average of more than 10% and even greater in high-cost areas. how about the fraternal order of police? the f.o.p. is very concerned that the partial or total elimination of the state and local tax deduction, something very important to my state, my home state of washington, would endanger the ability of our state and local government to actually fund these agencies and recruit the men and women we need to keep us safe. that's a quote from the
fraternal order of police. the american council on education has said this -- as a result, we're deeply concerned that at a time when postsecondary degrees and credentials have never been more important to individuals, the economy and our society, the tax reform proposal approved by the senate could make college more expensive and undermine the financial stability of higher education institutions. let's be clear about what's happening here. the republicans have a plan, and that plan, it's like a little three-stepdance. first, transfer trillions of dollars of wealth from middle class families and the poorest amongst us to the wealthy corporations who are not already paying their fair share. second, when you do that transfer explode the deficit. so the estimates are $1.4 trillion, $1.5 trillion would be added to the deficit. and then finally, use the fact that you're exploding the
deficit to actually cut programs that are critical to americans across the country -- medicare, medicaid, social security. we know that as written this bill would trigger mandatory spending cuts to medicare and medicaid of significant amounts. so the reality is that we are in a situation where this is incredibly unpopular. the polling shows right now that americans are not buying this tax scam. 68% say that the tax bill helps the wealthiest. 54% say the tax bill favors biggest republican donors. 61% say that medicare and social security cuts would ultimately end up being the vehicle that's used to pay for these tax cuts to the wealthiest. and 68% say that changes to the affordable care act should not be in this tax bill. so here's where we are. the house passed its bill on november 16 and in the early
hours of december 2, just last friday, the senate passed its version. so we're going into conference committee now, which means a group of legislators from the house and a group of legislators from the senate get together and they try to work out the differences between the two bills and then ultimately whatever that compromise is, if it's worked out, would come back for a vote to the house and the senate. so now more than ever we need the voices of people across the country to call and to talk about the concerns that working people across this country have. we do need a real reform of the tax system, to simplify it, to make sure that people are paying their fair share, but that's not what this is. . this is a tax scam. it's a heist. it's a transfer of millions of dollars of families to wealthiest who do not need that money.
the health is that -- the reality is that we need to be investing in the american people. we need to be investing in jobs, in education, we need to be making sure that middle class families are getting a break. that they can actually think about a generation for their -- a future for their kid, for the next generation that is better than the one they have. so we have very little time. but representative raskin, i'm very sure that we in the progressive caucus and we in the democratic caucus are going to do everything we can to fight for working people, for the most vulnerable among us, and to protect things like chip. the children's health insurance program. to protect -- temporary protected status for immigrants across the country. to make sure we're passing a clean dream act. these are the kinds of priorities we should be focusing on. not lining the pockets of the wealthiest corporations. and transferring jobs from the united states to tax havens elsewhere. so we have a lot of work to do to make sure that in this very
short period of time people speak up and speak out and make sure that we do not pass this bill, make sure that we instead work together in a bipartisan way for a tax reform that is actually beneficial to working families. with that, i yield back to you and again thank you for your leadership on the progressive aucus. mr. raskin: thank you for your wonderful remarks and your terrific leadership here on behalf of the people of washington and on behalf of middle class and working class americans all across the country. mr. speaker, may i trouble you just to ask how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 47 minutes remaining. mr. raskin: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and the progressive caucus greatly appreciates this time to
talk with the american people. for me it's always one of my favorite moments in the tremendously busy weeks that we've got here on capitol hill and in congress. i represent the 800,000 people in maryland's eighth congressional district, which includes montgomery county, frederick county and carol county. and i have the honor of going to work for them. essentially seven days a week, i live just about 25 minutes from capitol hill. and i take the metro or drive to work, come back home. and i get to spend pretty much every day both with my district and with my colleagues here in congress. but this is a special time of the week for me because so many of my colleagues are on airplanes or on trains going back to where they come from. and they spend a lot of their time on mondays and fridays traveling. and he get to be here -- and i get to be here and i get to work and i have a little more time to think, mr. speaker. because we're so buffeted by
events and tweets and conflicts and controversies. we don't valls time to think -- we don't always have time to think. and i get to have time on mondays and thursday nights and fridays to be a little bit more reflective and deliberative about what it is we're doing here in washington. i wanted to start just by bringing everybody up to date about an alarming new legislative development, before i get back to the tax bill, which will be next week's problem. yesterday the house of representatives passed something that they call the concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017. the entire bill is fraudulent, beginning with its name. because it asserts that it has something to do with reciprocity. but it doesn't. right now any state that has a law governing the issuance of concealed carry permits to its citizens can decide to work with
its neighbor to allow a reciprocal arrangement. about half of the states have done that. they've got deals with their neighbors. but this act would wipe all of the reciprocity agreements out. it would impose one national standard on everybody in america , reducing everybody to the lowest, most permissive states in the union. in terms of concealed carry. in my state, in maryland, we have a number of very serious hurdles to get over before you get the right to carry a loaded concealed weapon. you can't be mentally unstable ordaining rouse. can't be a domestic offender. you can't be a violent criminal convict, a felon or have a misdemeanor. you have to show that you know how to use weaponry. and so on. we take it very seriously. several dozen states have similar laws. others have much laxer and much looser laws.
and that's federalism. everybody decides for themselves. but this legislation that they passed yesterday would wipe out the state laws of every state in the country and drag us down to the bottom. it's not a race to the bottom. it's a plunge to the bottom. because they say, if you can get a concealed carry permit in any state, and in some states like florida there's 1.7 million people with concealed carry, you can go anywhere in the country. it's a passport to override the laws of every other state in the union. and there are more than 14 million concealed carry permits in the united states and suddenly that's 14 million more people with guns that can come to your state, over your state laws. when you don't want it. oh, and guess what else they've snuck in here. the people who claim not to like litigation, they've created a whole new cause of action. they can sue the police officers if they feel the police officers have detained them too long. but of course the police officers are going to detain them too long because they've got to figure out whether they've got a right to the gun.
-- whether or not they've got a right to the gun. in the nationalization of concealed carry, have they created a bureaucracy, a computer where we're able to figure out whether someone is carrying a real concealed carry permit or a fake i.d. concealed carry permit? no, not at all. that's put upon you. your state. to try to figure it out. if you hold the person too long, they can sue you. and guess what, attorneys' fees for the police officer, attorneys' fees awarded against the sheriffs. attorneys' fees against our law enforcement officers for trying to keep us safe and enforce our state laws. now, we've got two opportunities to stop this. one is in the u.s. senate. i already spoke to one senator who was absolutely dumbfounded and amazed that such legislation would even be introduced after more than two centuries of the history of the united states, somebody would put in a bill to try to extinguish the state concealed carry laws all across the country.
and give other people who wouldn't have the right to get a gun in your state the right to come there. and this after some of the worst firearms massacres and disasters in our history. the las vegas attack, which led to the deaths of 59 of our country men and country women. the attack in sgget sutherland springs in texas -- in sutherland springs in texas, which killed dozens of people. the gun violence is even -- has even come here to washington and to the capitol and to the members of congress -- capital and to the members of congress ourselves, and still we haven't done anything. we don't take up a universal criminal background check to close the internet loophole, to close the private fail loophole. people selling guns in the parking lot at a gas station. so we close the loopholes that make us an absolute outliar in terms of the civilized world. we don't take that up. we don't take up legislation to
ban military style assault weapons like the ones that were used in newtown, connecticut, to assassinate 20 schoolchildren at point blank range. we don't take up that legislation. we don't even take up legislation that they promised. we thought that they wanted to do, which is get rid of the bump stocks. no. that faded away too. instead they bring us this proposal to drive us deeper into the cycles of gun violence and misery. that the n.r.a. and the g.o.p. have taken us to in america. so, two opportunities to stop this madness. one in the united states senate. but the other is this. the pretended champions of the u.s. constitution are violating the constitution. they're trampling the constitution. why? well, the congress of the united states is an institution with limited imnumerated power. we don't have the right to do
whatever we want as congress. we have to exercise a real power. well, what power is being exercised here? well, there's only a couple of possible candidates. one they say we're regulating commerce. but that's absurd. there's no commerce that's being regulated in any way at all. doesn't say anything about business, doesn't say anything about money. there's no commerce. and the supreme court authority is very clear about that. that's why the supreme court struck down the gun-free school zones act. which my friends across the aisle were totally opposed to. and they said, that's got nothing to do with commerce. the possession of a gun within a school zone has nothing to do with commerce. you have to strike it down. equally the possession of your concealed carry weapon has nothing to do with commerce either. so that doesn't help them. then they would say, well, really what we're doing is we are vindicating the second amendment. the second amendment gives you the right to do it. well, there's a couple odd
things about that. one is that if the second amendment gave you the right to take a concealed carry gun anywhere you want in the country, why is no court ever -- why has no court ever said that? and why aren't they just bringing lawsuit? because the federal courts across the land have been overwhelmingly clear. that the second amendment does not give you a right to carry a loaded concealed gun. you don't get that right under the second amendment. if you had that right, you get it from your state government. i thought that was something that my friends across the aisle believed in. federalism and state powers and state rights. but no. they would say, well, here, this is an enforcement of the second amendment. i suppose. the supreme court also struck .own that bit of trickery in a case called city of bernie vermont flores, which tell the it -- -- vs. flores, which dealt with the freedom of religious act. congress said we are going to
overrule essentially the laws of the states and say that any burden on people's religious free exercise is presumptively unconstitutional. unless you can show that there's a compelling interest. in your state against it. and the supreme court said, wait, where does congress get the power to do that? and congress said, well, we're just enforcing people's religious free exercise rights. and the supreme court said, you don't enforce people's rights by changing the meaning of the right. similarly, you don't enforce the second amendment right, which undoubtedly exists under the heller decision, 2018, which said you've got a right to handgun for self-defense, you have a rifle for purposes of hunting and recreation. but you don't extend those rights, change the meaning of those rights, in the name of the second amendment, and then say that's where congress gets its power. on that theory, the supreme court said in the case, striking down the religious freedom
restoration act to apply to state, the courts said there would be no limit at all to federal power and that can't be right. my friends celebrated yesterday, having passed an unconstitutional bill, unconstitutional. we have no power to trample the handiwork of the states all over the country. the state legislatures have the power under the 10th amendment and congress lacks the power in article i to define what concealed carry policy is going to be. in the states. that's up to the states. so if they want to become the absolute enemies of the state legislatures and state power and state rights, be my guest. but what they've got is an unconstitutional piece of legislation as well. a deeply dangerous and ill thought-out piece of legislation. and the last thing i want to say about it is, like almost everything else they bring to us now, there were no hearings on it. think about that. here we are, one of the greatest
legislative bodies on the planet earth. abraham lincoln sat in this body. john f. kennedy sat in this body. some of the greatest legislators who ever existed were here and they are passing bills without so much as a single hearing. they just bring it up for a vote. so we whip out our phones and we're trying to google, to find out about the issue. that's how i found out, for example, that more than 1,100 people carrying concealed carry eapons had committed homicides or mass shootings or killing of police or suicides with their guns. and now they want open season. if you want to allow anybody in your state to get a concealed carry weapon, be our guest. don't impose that rule on the people of maryland. we don't want it. thank you very much. we've already decided what we've got. and that's true of state legislatures all across the
land. their so-called reciprocity legislation is actually a demolition of reciprocity because lots of states have entered into agreements that will be extinguished by their law. o, without without a hearing and without realizeing they are violating the constitution, they go ahead and pass this law. all right. that is a distraction from the main order of business this month which is demolition of america's middle class and i'm sorry to put it in compressed terms but no other way to describe what the "new york times" the worst piece of tax legislation ever introduced in the history of our country. now america's gotten the point about the g.o.p. tax plan and it a highway robbery and the
richest people will benefit and it is an outrageous decision to drive the country into more deficit, more debt, all to enrich the robber barrons and cyber barrons. and cut corporate taxes from 35% to 20% at a time of record profits, and why? why would you do that? hey say that if we bestow this traordinary windfall, bonus, presents on corporate america, we will get more jobs out of it. wait a second, if all they needed was more profits, more dividends to create jobs, then we would be seeing them right now and we are at a time of economic growth and any economist you ask that is not in the pay of the the proponents
said it is a deranged thing to do to cut it. why would we do that? they say it will lead to economic development. nonsense. show me where it works. it doesn't work. you give more money to people at the top of society, they pocket it and send it overseas to their wiss bank accounts or came and islands. if you want economic growth you do what president roosevelt did, you invest in the middle class and working people. business growth comes from demand and demand comes from a strong middle class that is able to buy stuff. you starve the middle class, there is no demand. that's what they do and donald trump has stayed in business.
the russian oligarches have been renting out his condos and the trump hotel and exporting from russia going right into the trump enterprise and now our oligarches do the same thing. you want strong growth and you want fairness, you want a domestic society, you invest in the middle class, not the wealthiest people in the country. now, there is a strong link here to our campaign finance regime shows.ry public poll you think you can fool the american people? you cannot. americans know this tax bill is a great deal if you got your own lobby. great deal. you got your own political action committee. if you are in the trump cabinet,
and this is utopia. this is absolute utopia. run your own p.a.c., watch out. watch out in this bill. boston globe there was a great article with the title the coke brothers and their friends want president trump's tax cut very badly. quote, tim phillips, americans for prosperity, saying it is the most we have ever taken on. congratulations to the koch brothers and get their own signature tax bill and all the g.o.p. politicians are saying the same thing. check it out. they are saying the same thing. calling up the millionaires and billionaires and they say, you
deliver us that tax bill first. you get nothing from us until you deliver us that tax brand. you guys haven't done anything in washington, they say. haven't been thrown 30 million people off their health care. you deliver us that tax bill. we -- that's what we want. trump's cabinet needs no outside push even from the campaign donors and the wealthiest cabinet in u.s. history. it's $20 million, $50 million. $4.3 ump cabinet is worth billion. $4.3 billion is what their cabinet is worth and all love the tax plan and should, you know why? they wrote it. they they are going to abolish
cuts.althiest and only the wealthiest people who pay the estate tax now and now want to wipe it out and costing us $70 billion. and want to collide and ntradict and -- an essential principle which is opposition to heard tear government like kings and opposition to heard tear wealth. the founders like ben franklin and tom payne and alexander hamilton, they knew that the intergenerational transmission of huge for the tunes was a threat to democracy. at a certain point, people don't want to just buy a bigger house or another house or a third house or fourth house, but they
ant to buy a governorship and u.s. senate seat and buy the president of the united states. what is at stake not we are going to have semblance in the u.s. economy, it's bad enough we ve one of the most unequal economies on the earth today, but they want the government that responds only to the wealthiest class in the society. so they want to abolish the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. that's the only reason donald trump paid tax in the one year we know he paid any tax in the last two decades. and of course, they want to get rid of that. for the middle class, well, no breaks there. they want to get rid of the college student loan interest
deduction. if you go to college, you get a deduction to the college student loan interest, gone. health care expenses, you spend more than 10% of your income, long-term care, someone in your care has alzheimer's disease or commiled who has autism, you can now deduct that. they want to get rid of that. they want to get rid of salt. targeted right at those states like maryland, connecticut, new jersey, new york, california, linois that invests in education. this another snake rising in the grass of this terrible bill, they want to repeal the jongson amendment. this is named after lyndon johnson when he was a senator
and take you back to the 1950's and 1960's and it was a very simple amendment that is to the ly a logical free exercise clause and it -c-3 say that 501 organizes, churches, universities, not-for-profit agencies cannot engage in political campaigning and guess what the koch brothers and the mere sersville talked into this one. they are going to get rid of the johnson amendment, so the koch brothers want to spend a billion dollars trying to define american politics, now it will be tax deductible and can spend whatever they want but they have
to pay for it. now they put it into a church or churches, the church of the golden and then deduct it and the church can now be involved in politics and spend money in politics and endorse candidates for office, ok, and it remains a tax exempt entity. the smart churches, which is most churches, have opposed it. the next step, people will say wait a second, why are we getting tax deductible contributions in churches, why are we getting involved in politics like everybody else, and that will be the logical question. indeed, it threatens the very xistence of the 501-c-3 by
tearing down thaw wall over tax exempt contributions that the koch brothers want so badly. their difference vine loophole and find a way they can control our politics and deduct it from our taxes and corrupt the entire not for profit sector, the churches, the synagogues and the mosques and so on. wish i could leave you with chiefier news tonight but the u.s. congress is on the verge of passing this, the worst tax proposal in american history that offends every value that we cherish. and why? the people who are pushing it, who are doing back flips in the middle of the night to hide it from us, you know it took us 2 years and 10 months to pass the
bipartisan tax legislation. this is happenedy work behind the scenes, speed of light, dark of night, the whole thing. why are they willing to do it ven though it is rejected by 2-1. people understand, it's highway robbery. what's the worst that could happen to them. the worst to happen, if they lose and go to work for the koch brothers and the mercers and the highway robbery is complete. now popular protests stops the plan to throw tens of millions of people off their health care, the g.o.p. controls the white house, senate and house and the senate and popular protests stopped it. mr. speaker, that's the only
thing that could stop us now because so many of my colleagues across the aisle have decided to walk the plank for the koch brothers and the billionaire cabinet and throw in with the american oligarches. so popular protests, people speaking out and contacting their members will be our only hope of showing that this is an absolute insult and afront to american democracy. not just american economics, economics for everybody, but democratic politics, politics for everybody, not just the elite. so thank you, mr. speaker, for granting us this time to allow us to express our intense anxiety about what might happen next week. and we wish a good weekend and i
the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. a lot of big things going on. more things will be coming out. we've had an interesting day of it today. hopefully the house and senate -- i think we're going to get a tax cut bill done. i think it's unfair to just call it a tax reform because it doesn't explain -- we did tax cuts for everybody. we didn't change the percentage on the wealthiest americans.
and i understand the thinking. look, if we as republicans change, we lower all the tax rates, then the democrats will say, see, you're doing a big tax cut for the wealthy. so i get it. but as the old saying in washington goes, the more -- no matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to catch up. not in washington. so, ok. so we didn't change the top percentage rated tax on the wealthiest americans, only one we didn't change. so what has happened? our friends across the aisle have said, see, this is a tax cut to help the rich. that's the one tax rate we didn't change. so it wouldn't have mattered. i would love to have just seen, all right, we're getting rid of all the thee these -- these tax
rates. we're going to have one tax rate. and i would love it to be the tax rate that the bible suggests in the synagogue or church and hat's 10% of your proceedings. , not 10% to the government after the 10% of the first fruits to the church or synagogue, if those are your religious beliefs? let's see. i forget which candidate, one of the candidates used to say, hey, if 10%'s good enough for god, why shouldn't it be good enough for the government? but anyway. this is a nice thought. but we're still doing a little bit of social engineering. trying apparently in the tax bill to give a lot of help to the folks that need it. there are some things that i
hope will return -- i've heard from folks in my district, some accountants that have clients that they do pay enough in medical expenses, if they don't get to deduct that, they're going to be bankrupt. so, hopefully that will be something that comes back and gets put in our version. the last people we need to harm are the people that they got no other place to go. they're on social security. they're heading toward the end of life on this planet and then the government stabs them in the back. i mean, that's what bill clinton did back in 1993. not only did he put a tax on their social security in 1993, he made it retroactive. so it wasn't just taxing social security for the future, it made it retroactive.
that was terribly tragic. i wish we were making our tax cuts retroactive so that the working poor would get the help much quicker. but everybody in america is going to get some help with reduction, massive reduction of the largest tariff that any industrialized nation puts on its own goods when they're produced. it's called a corporate tax. and they make you think, oh, these greedy corporations, you know, they're paying that tax. they don't pay that tax. ust like warren buffett. warren buffett, although he keeps saying publicly he
wouldn't mind paying more taxes, his actions seem to indicate that they're paying massive amounts of money to lawyers to keep his company from paying the billions of dollars that i'm told is owed. but anyway. we'll see what happens there. but i'm very hopeful that we are going to get a tax deal done and we're going to bring it to the floor of this house and we're sing to pass it and we'll god bless kevin brady and the ways and means committee. at least these who made it possible, made it happen -- at least those who made it possible, made it happen. and paul ryan has been very helpful in moving that direction on the tax bill. so that will be a great thing, if we can get it done. i'm also grateful to the chairman of the judiciary ommittee today for the hearing that he requires that we have.
we had the f.b.i. director, director ray, come over and estify in front of us. i'm optimistic with director ray . of course, i was optimistic with director comey when i first got to question him. because i saw comey, oh, this is great. finally we've gotten rid of mueller and all the damage he's done to the f.b.i.. and as i pointed out to director a very , he took over weakened f.b.i. from the one f.b.i. took over as director under bush. because when director mueller took over, as f.b.i. director, i've tried to figure out why he would do this.
and the only thing i can figure is he wanted a bunch of young yes people working for him. because it goes, you know, pretty common sense that people with the most experience are going to be in a position to tell you as the new f.b.i. director when you're choosing to go down a road that's going to create problems. there are f.b.i. agents that have been there for 25 years, like so many of ours were, had been. they're an oddity now. but that was because mueller wanted young, fresh, saluting yes men that would salute the flag, salute him. and not be in a position to say, well, director, could i make a suggestion, sir? you know, we did exactly what you're suggesting back in 1996
1986.3 or 1988, we did that back then and here's what happened, so if you would you a low -- would allow me, sir, i'd recommend that we look at this, that or the other. apparently director mueller didn't want those kind of people in the f.b.i. so he started a five-year up and ut -- up or out program. our thousands of f.b.i. agents , in the country hundreds of offices that are , the five-yearnd up or out program is basically this. if you're in a supervisory position anywhere in the world for five years, at the end of the five years, you either must get out of the f.b.i., or the
way it was interpreted by so many f.b.i. agents, or you're going to have to come ride a cubicle up here in washington. and people all over the country and world that were working for taking i. said, i'm not my family to washington, d.c., and with all my training and experience going to ride a cubicle somewhere. i need to be out protecting people, helping people. and so as the "wall street journal" pointed out in an article that didn't seem like it was all that far into his 10 years, actually it turned into 12 i believe, director mueller had in devastating the f.b.i., and he made some huge mistakes. cost millions of dollars. whether it's software program, this program, this program.
he had all these ideas and there were plenty of people that had had enough experience, the different areas, that if he hadn't run them off could have said, this is not a good idea, sir, if i could suggest -- he didn't want to hear from those people. he ran them off. thousands and thousands of years of law enforcement experience. he ran them off. be interesting to see what the average age of the f.b.i. agents were when he left compared to when he started. i realize there's some old get tos that get long in the tooth -- old goats that get long in the tooth. but you don't run them off because they're older. those are some of the most valuable people you can have. the only reason you should run anybody off is if they've just been so cantakerous that it's a problem. they're not doing their job. but he ran them off because they
had been in a supervisory position for five years. so, you know, you'd see offices that had an agent in charge, 20, 25, 26 years of experience. and they'd finish their five years and say, i'm getting out. i didn't want to get out. i wanted to serve my country. even though i make a lot less in the f.b.i.. but you're forcing me out. so, i'll go make a whole lot more money. wish i could still be here. but the f.b.i. director mueller had other ideas. yield to the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: great. the chair will -- thank you, mr. gohmert. the chair will receive a message. the messager: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed h.j.res. 123, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2018 and for other purposes.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. gohmert: thank you meerks. -- thank you, mr. speaker. sounds like we've got cramplet r. for a couple of weeks. -- we've got a c.r. for a couple of weeks. so we'll be funded for a couple of weeks. ut director mueller severely hampered the f.b.i.. a lot of damage that was done. and perhaps if he hadn't run off so many good, experienced people, all those thousands and thousands of years of experience , perhaps there would have been more elder statesmen in the f.b.i. when he was allowing the f.b.i. agent to manufacture, fabricate evidence, hide evidence. and just fabricate a case out of clothe against -- cloth against
senator ted stevens. i met him. he was kind of short with me. but that's no reason to rosecute somebody. for the f.b.i., as director mueller created it the way he wanted it. but there was apparently nobody that would step up. the people that had enough experience and enough confidence in their positions to say, director mueller, you have got a grave injustice going on here. you are creating a case where there was none. you know, you hammered this guy, you took all his evidence, you took his computers, all his documents, you raided his bank, got his bank records, you got all his records. he has nothing except what you allow him to have back.
you took everything. and all of the evidence is pretty clear, he overpaid by hundreds of thousands of dollars for the improvement. there is no case here for saying he got d 600,000 improvements, -- $600,000 improvements, whatever it was, to his home for free. he overpaid dramatically more than the improvements were worth or cost anybody else. supposedly there was even a message that the contractor said, you're overpaying, and the senator made clear, they watch me like a hawk. just cash the check. i'd rather overpay than have them come after me someday. and what happened? you had an f.b.i. that had run off too much experience. well, director mueller did. and there was nobody before the verdict that would step up and say the f.b.i.'s doing the wrong
thing here. this is injustice. we have rogue f.b.i. eakts that have to be reign -- agents that have to be reigned in. at least -- reined in. at least one. fortunately there was an f.b.i. agent with a conscience. unlike the lead agent that mueller allowed to stay on, even after he got rid of the whistleblower. mueller didn't want a whistleblower around. not somebody that would be honest. not somebody that would step forward and say, they created a case against a u.s. senator when there was no case he had done -- no case, he had done nothing wrong. and you tried it the week before his election and he lost by, what, 1,000 or so? and he would have won but for the f.b.i., under director mueller, destroying a man and robbing him of his finances, destroying his reputation and getting him -- director mueller
as f.b.i. director got this man fired for nothing. the truth was he was overpaid. he should have gotten money for what he did. but not in mueller's f.b.i. i haven't seen anything to indicate the prosecutors knew of the fabrication and the fraud by the lead f.b.i. agent. did that ever materialize, i would want to find out where those prosecutors are and make sure the world knows of the injustice that they participated in. actually crime. it's a crime when you fraudulently charge and convict somebody of a crime and you know there is no crime.
you know you fabricated the case, but such was mueller's f.b.i. i had great hopes for director comey coming in. and some things were said, well, did president trump ask for a loyalty oath from you, something like that, there is nothing wrong with a president saying to a person that he has the power to remove or put in office, i expect you to be loyal to me. and what that would mean for a normal person is, i expect you to come tell me if there's a problem. and i expect you to be loyal to me so that if there's some
problem i'm creating, you come tell me and you don't go doing a memo and twist the memo around to make it look like i did something wrong. i expect you to be loyal to me and not do anything different than you would to any other president than you would serve the country and the president with distinction and not just go leaking things to hurt me. just be loyal. that's not asking for anybody to commit a crime and not anyone to obstruct justice but be fair to me as a boss. will you do that. it makes sense to ask a question like that when you have seen so much injustice done to you by the justice department.
and we didn't even know when president trump when he took office how horrendous the injustices were that were lurking behind the closed doors at the justice department, because it wasn't a justice department, it was a just us department. we'll protect the people that we think will be in the next administration and heaven help the people if they are not chosen out of the executive office out of 1600 pennsylvania avenue, we'll get them out and use the justice department because after all, there was a thin vale at the top of political appointments. we are under that level and we will control things. sounds like the way it was
going. . en you got a guy like mccabe e bible says when two become married, you become one. but his wife, running for office gets hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to what we dile, and from donna bra took over the d.n.c. and giving money to mccabe's wife. they knew hillary clinton deserved a thank you note. and the one that owed the thank you note to hillary clinton as a husband who is going to prosecute her, probably not. probably not. those are the kinds of things we
are finding. .b.i. director was asked about figured so and i many people would have so many questions and i would go a different direction. he was the former number two for counterintelligence. he was removed from mueller's investigation team this summer after an inspector general scovered he was exchanging litically-charged messages with an f.b.i. attorney in the office of the general counsel. we heard from director wr arch y today that many of us think of the f.b.i. and federal bureau of
many f.b.i. that agents think it doesn't stand for federal but stands for fidelity. ut apparently in the case of the number two person in counter strzok, it peter was an i for infidelity, because .e was being unfaithful e was engaged in infidelity. not fidelity. don't sell that to us. and was enjoying in the course of his infidelity being disloyal o the man who would be and ultimately his boss, the boss,
the president of the united states, donald trump. stead of being fired for his impro priorities, for his bias that was clearly affecting his job, director mueller, the man that did so much damage, ran off thousands of years of experience that could step forward and guide younger agents away from pitfalls, ran them off. you could have younger agents without the proper guidance from the white hairs or no hairs. he ran them off. he didn't want people with too much experience. and i might question something that he ordered. and when there's nol
accountability, nobody with more experience that can come along side and say, i have been here and seen a lot of things, let me tell you, i see how you are going in this direction, don't go there. i seen too many people go that way. ow mueller made sure the consciences of the f.b.i. that he could breach, were gone. so instead of being fired, though, when they found out that zok hated president trump's guts and worshipped hillary clinton and skewed the case, i ean, they knew, he knew if the f.b.i. director comey went out and said that hillary clinton had been grossly negligent, then he would be stating on the
record that hillary clinton have committed a crime and protect hillary clinton so she could be president, he said -- well, he changed the language so that director comey would not implicate hillary clinton from committing a crime, he changed the words to excessively careless as i understand it. and that wasn't necessarily a crime. he was covering up. the man should have been gone. what did they do? ell, he was re-assigned to the .b.i.'s h.r. department. it's unclear what his job duties were in his new position.
but when he was asked about the nature of that move today, rector wray said it wasn't a demotion. director wray didn't want to discipline the guy for covering up hillary clinton, for skewing the case to make sure that hillary clinton wasn't implicated. no. no. no. clearly he has a bias and hates donald trump before and after he is president, but that's no problem. we sure don't want to lose a guy because he hates donald trump and loves hillary clinton and skews the justice department to suit his love for hillary clinton and his hate for donald trump. no. let's not demote him, let's not fire him.
let's just have the move here, maybe make his life easier, i guess. but in quoting from the response question wray of a posed by andy biggs. he was re-assigned. it seems it was an odd lateral move. are you saying it was a lateral move for him? irector wra ymp said, we reassigned to the human resources department. i understand that may sound to some of you like a demotion, but can assure that in a 37,000 -person organization with a $9 billion budget and offices all around the country and 80 countries around the world that i think our human resources department is extremely
important and a lot of what they do is cutting edge best practice stuff. different kind of assignment personally and that's why i a disciplinaryit or a demotion. based on what director wr arch ymp, peter was neither demoted a r they found him what in key investigation that was of a political nature. look, nobody is demanding that our f.b.i. agents not go vote on election day. they have that right. and in some cases they have the obligation because they know so much of what's going on. it is very unfortunate that they know so much going on and know the people they are voting on appeared to have committed
crimes and we have to change language and cover for them. not only was he not punished nor zok said he eter str s put in a position that was extremely important. e was having an extramarital affair with. and why would you send someone who was caught sleeping around with his wife with a fellow employee -- why would you give them an extremely important position in the human resources department if you are the director of the f.b.i.? i wanted to start fresh with a great f.b.i. director, but i'm a little concerned here. you think it's a good equal
fix, when al fakes someone is being engaged in infidelity, not the fidelity, but engaged in infidelity, broken their marriage oath, that's who you want handling your human resources because it's extremely important position. so we need the guy that was skewing justice? that's who we need? . . kind of ridiculous. he wasn't punished or fired. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gohmert: i appreciate your
indulgence, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next. for morning hour debate.lowey, minutes.