tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 13, 2019 11:59am-3:58pm EDT
openings. the labor department when reporting on hiring competition says that there's an increase in average hourly pay by 3.4% from last year. which is highest in a decade. given the strong economy, dr. akers, are you seeing states beginning to thoughtfully reinvest into the higher education institutions given strong economic performance nationally? dr. akers: it does seem there was a decline in state support following the great recession. and we have seen recent indications of an increase in investment. r. watkins: chancellor morrison-shetlar -- >> this hearing set to continue another half our or so. streaming online at c-span.org. we'll lever here as the u.s. house is gaveling in next. they are going to take up later a nonbinding resolution that special counsel robert mueller's report should be made available to the public and
congress when released. also on the agenda today a. bill on financial transparency. life to the house floor on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your blessing upon this assembly and upon all who call upon your name. send your spirit to fill their hearts with those divine gifts you have prepared for them. may your grace find expression in their compassion for the weak and the poor among us and may your mercy encourage goodwill in all they do and accomplish this day. as the members of the people's house face the demands of our time, grant them and us all your
peace. may all that is done this day 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 her pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from florida, mr. dunn. mr. dunn: 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 now entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the
gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> good afternoon, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. speaker. president trump's budget landed with a thud on the backs of working americans this week. its message is quite simple. this administration will reward wealth with one hand and target working families with another. to this president, avoiding the estate tax for wealthy heirs is an entitlement, but the health care of everyday americans is expandable. to this president, carried interest on passive income is a worthy tax benefit for executives while a livable minimum wage for a working parent is a burden we cannot afford. to this president, a lengthy record of felony convictions won't deny your tax credits for
a private jet, but a conviction for misdemeanor drug possession can cost you the roof over your head. a budget that puts americans first doesn't deem millions of americans unworthy. a budget that puts americans first doesn't starve them of housing, of health care, and of food because their president counts the stock market as better than our common humanity. but putting americans first has not been the fundamental policy of this administration. it's always been to draw a bright line between the wealthy and the striving. reject this budget. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? from florida, excuse me, from florida. >> 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. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor mayor betty walker of chieftain,
florida, who passed away on monday, february 25. she served the citizens of chieftain as an elected city commissioner for over 15 years and mayor and vice mayor for 11. betty was the first african-american female elected official for city of chieftain. she was a great leader. she loved her community immensely. she advocated for the police and fire department and the maintenance departments as well. mayor walker had recently retired after spending almost 40 years helping adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. mr. dunn: she truly loved the people of chieftain. she was passionate about parks and recreation and always had a vision for her city. mayor walker leaves behind a rich leg kwlacy that not many can -- legacy that not many can match. please join me in honoring a life well lived. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. today in yemen there are millions of yemeni people who are on the brenk of death -- brink of death from famine, disease, lack of access to food and water. enthusiasts of civilians have died. in this again sidal war being waged by saudi arabia with support from the united states. they have been living under the looming threat of death at a moment's notice. this must end, not another day can go by with u.s. support for this genocidal war. saudi arabia is not our ally. they spend billions of didars spreading the wahhabi that fuels terrorist organizations like isis and al qaeda. they take the weapons they get
from the united states and provide them to al qaeda. enough is enough. today the senate is taking an important vote and i urge my colleagues in the senate to hear the pleas of the yemeni people who are begging for their lives. vote today to end the unconstitutional u.s. support for saudi arabia's genocidal war in yemen. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? arkansas. >> 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. >> i thank the speaker. i rise in honor for the life and legacy of a friend and holocaust survivor, fred, who recently passed away at the age of 90. mr. hill: fred was only 4 when adolf hitler took over as
chancellor of germany. after spending years in concentration camps throughout romania, facing death, witnessing some of the most heinous and grotesque atrocities the world has seen, fred and his family were finally rescued by a jewish russian soldier. with his newfound freedom, fred moved to the united states to defend his education in electrical engineering. after meeting his wife, fred moved first to san francisco and finally to retire in fairfield bay, arkansas. here he wanted that slower pace of life. in his later years, fred advocated to young people, find your passion early and pursue it. even if adversity comes your way. he was a role model and friend to many across the state of arkansas. and i extend my condolences, respect, and affect shun to his friends, family, and loved ones. thanks, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas yields back. for what purpose does the the
gentlewoman from arizona 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 gentlewoman is recognized for one mrs. kirkpatrick: i am here to represent the residents of as as' secondal congressional district. i work for them. our constituents sent us here to practice good government and to fight for their values and interests. so i'm upset with the president's recent budget request. a budget is an expression of our values and this budget further proves how out-of-touch donald trump is with real american families. this budget ransacks medicaid, medicare, and affordable health care. it makes it harder for americans to have access to quality health care. this budget abandons hungry families who are struggling to make ends meet. it fails farmers in rural
communities. it pushes affordable college further out of reach. making it harder for students to attend college. and this budget demands billions for a wasteful, ineffective wall. we need to have a budget that prioritizes working families and not large corporations. we need to invest more in our education system and invest more in our young people, not less. what the president has laid out does not accomplish the goals or values of american families and i reject this budget. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california 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 is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the equality act.
too often in our policy debates it's our rural communities that are forgotten and left behind. for lgbtq people living in rural america, this is no different. if you want to live and work and raise your family in rural america, you should be able to have that choice. but it's unfortunately the case today is that rural lgbtq families are denied opportunities in housing, employment, and health care access. mr. cox: while in california we have comprehensive laws to protect lgbtq communities, people -- protect them against discrimination, this is not the case everywhere. that's why we need bills like the equality act. this bill would take important steps to protect every lgbtq family from discrimination in housing, ploifment, and fansing. it would help ensure every family that lives choosings to live in rural america, can fully participate in our society, free from discrimination. with that i yield back.
for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 12, house resolution 208. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the concurrent resolution h.con.res. 24, expressing the sense of congress that the report of special counsel mueller should be made available to the public and to congress. all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. the amendments to the concurrent resolution and the preamble printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the concurrent resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the concurrent resolution, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and preamble, as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
committee on the judiciary. section 2, on any legislative day during the period from march 15, 2019, through march 2, 2019, a, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved, and b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution, to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 3, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 2 of this resolution as though under lause 8-a of rule 1. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one hour. mr. desaulnier: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, for purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr.
woodall. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration for this -- of this resolution, all time yielded for is the r for the purposes of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks to rent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. desaulnier: mr. speaker, on monday the rules committee met and reported a rule, house resolution 208, providing for consideration of house concurrent resolution 24, a resolution expressing the sense of congress that the report of special counsel mueller and the sense of congress that that special counsel should be made available to the public and to congress. the rule provides for consideration of the legislation under closed rule. the rule self-executes two amendments that simply clarify that the resolution is calling for the release of the special counsel's findings in addition to any report. it provides one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the judiciary committee. finally the rule provides a standard recess procedures for the period of march 15 through march 22. . when the justice department special counsel, rod rosenstein said it's necessary for the american people to have full confidence in the outcome. our nation is grounded in the rule of law and the public must be assured that government officials administer the law fairly. this investigation has been about following the facts, wherever they may lead, getting to the truth of russia's involvement in the 2016 election, and ensuring government is transparent and accountable to the american public. this resolution does not of thatmine the outcome
investigation. it simply expresses that the report of the special counsel should be made available to the congress and the american people. the public, including my constituents in california, our constituents in california, mr. speaker, want to know what happened. nearly nine in 10 americans in both parties say the investigation should produce a full public report on their findings. not only do the american people want to know, but they deserve to know. congress needs to preserve their ability to know. our election system is an integral part of what makes us the beacon of western democracy. any and all attempts to undermine this system is an attack on our country's values and cannot be taken lightly. this is a serious investigation with consequences for elections, democracy, government, and the future of this country and democracy itself. there is no one with more intimate knowledge of russia's
involvement in our election than special counsel. to date, this investigation has resulted in 34 people and three companies being criminally charged. nearly 200 charges filed. seven guilty pleas. one conviction following a jury trial. and the investigation, while costing $25 million, has recovered approximately $48 million in assets from tax evasion. mr. speaker, eight federal and congressional intelligence and national security groups believe russia interfered in our election. with the central intelligence agency, the national security agency, the f.b.i., the office of the director of national intelligence concluding that vladimir putin personally, quote, ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the u.s. presidential election to undermine public faith in the democratic process, end quotes. the last time our country has
special counsel operating under the same rules as this probe was in 1993 to investigate the waco siege and allegations of government wrongdoing. prosecutors posted their final report directly on the internet with hundreds of pages of exhibits and timelines. the american people must receive the same transparency when this report is released. i encourage my friends across the aisle to support the release of this report. we have commitments to support it from three house republican leaders, including the minority leader, the minority whip and the republican conference chair, and i hope all of my colleagues across the aisle will join us in this vote to ensure that we are on the record, that we share one of the most important investigations of our time within these halls and with all of america. this is happening on our watch and it is our job to be faithful to our oath to defend and uphold
democracy. as justice brandeis famously said, sunlight is said to be the des disinfect -- disinfectant. -- said to be the best disinfectant. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i thank my friend for yielding the time. mr. speaker, when i see someone of your stature coming to the chair, i think we are down here to debate some serious american policy. we must be down here to change the law in ways that can only happen once in a generation when people come together to make things happen. and i don't know what they told you when they came to the chair this morning, but let me the first to tell you, that's not at all why we're here today. what we're here today to say is important, that the american people have a vested interest in confidence in our democracy. that's a value shared from the furthest side of the left to the furthest side of the right, but the resolution we have before us today is just a restatement of
current law. sometimes i think, mr. speaker, that we undermine faith in the democracy, when we try to pretend that division exists where division does not, where we try to pretend we're doing great things when in fact we are not. this is an opportunity today to speak with a voice in congress that says the independent counsel -- sorry -- the special counsel should release the report. but let me be clear, because we sometimes do more harm than good. that's going to be the headline. house votes for independent -- for special counsel to release the point. that's not actually what the resolution says. i want to guide you. if you got a copy, mr. chairman, you can go back through -- it's not going to be on page 1. it's not going to be on page 2 or 3 or 4 or 5. the real substance of the resolution is back on page -- bottom page 5, early on page 6. and it says, to the extent permitted by law. because as you know from your
legal background, mr. speaker, the law does not allow the special counsel to release so many things. grand jury testimony, for example, nowhere in the country is grand jury testimony disclosed. those facts are gathered, but that's never disclosed. intelligence sources and methods, that's never disclosed. nor would anybody on the other side of the aisle suggest that it should be. that's why in the resolution drafted by the democratic chairman of the judiciary committee, it says specifically, these things shall not be released. need not be released because it's prohibited by law. i only make that point, mr. chairman, because sometimes the headlines are all we read when they come through on our twitter feed. sometimes the headline, we believe, tells the whole story. i just want to make it clear that there's unanimity in this chamber that transparent is valuable in our republic. but it is also true that this is
a nation of laws. the reason the special counsel exists is because we're a nation of law, and the substance of the special counsel's report is going to be governed by those laws. and to the extent allowable by law, our attorney general has already said, he wants to make the entire thing available. i don't know how you want to characterize the resolution today, mr. speaker. whether you want to characterize it as an insistence of the house on how the administration should behave or just a big attaboy to our new attorney general to say you're doing great job and we're behind you 100% in what you already promised the american people you were going to do. however you characterize that resolution, we heard it in the rules committee, as my friend from california suggested. it's coming to the floor today under a closed rule. so if anybody has any additional changes they want to take, they can't do it. this is a take it or leave it
resolution from the rules committee today, but as a restatement of current law, it's quite clear. again, you have to go all the way back to the resolution to find those 10 lines of substance, but when you get there, you'll find these are already things the attorney general has agreed to and all americans should be pleased about that outcome. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desauliner: well, first off, let me join in my friend from georgia noting how important it is that you are presiding, my good friend, with lots of history between the two of us in our political life in california and our education, i might add, to the jesuits, and i want to say to my good friend, i look at this as one of those opportunities where we may not get a headline. unfortunately, too many of the headlines talk about how divisive it is here and certainly there's a lot of that, but when i go home and do town halls and do i a lot of them in northern california, when this question comes up about
polarization, i talk about all the times we do work together that don't get out, certainly in the headlines, because that's not what sells advertising, apparently. i think this is one of those moments we aspire to that, that we actually aspire somebody picks up on this, that all of us in these extraordinary circumstances are being faithful to our oath, that we make sure the things that may have happened, that apparently did happen, that the public that needs confidence of us and we look at every day, including today at the attacks on so many institutions in america, and this institution having had challenges, this might be one of those opportunities, at least for us, to say we agree. we may have differences of opinion about who did what, but we have faith. and for me, i think history will say this special counsel is one of those providential americans. with his background, with his determination to believe in
fidelity and truth, we were lucky to have this person at this point in time. so i put my faith in this institution. i put the faith in special counsel, and in this instance, i really hear from you, my friend from georgia, that we're going to put our faith in this institution and one another, that we can show the american people that this is indeed more important than party. it's more important than any of our individual political careers. i did want to mention, mr. speaker, that this is a sense of congress. this is not the first time we have brought a resolution like this to the floor. in fact, just last week, we brought a resolution to the floor to send a message to the american people that congress is united in condemning anti-semitism and bigotry in all its forms. there were people who criticized us for bringing that. thought it was unnecessary. but when we brought that to the floor, a majority of republicans joined democrats, an overwhelming majority, in voting for it. leader mccarthy called it a resolution to make a statement. whip scalise said, regarding the
resolution, we must take a strong stand against hatred and bigotry wherever we see it, and i'm glad this resolution makes sense. so we agree with our bletion on the other side of the aisle -- colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that passing these resolutions can make a strong statement. although they may seem to some as unnecessary, these statements and these kind of important issues, i believe, are very necessary for this institution to take and particularly when they are bipartisan. today, we are letting attorney general barr and everyone else know that we are all united behind one common principle, by i believe he agrees to in his confirmation hearings, that the member from georgia alluded to, that transparenty, complete transparency is vital, consistent with the law, to the success of our democracy. and if the american people deserve to have access to this report -- and that the american people deserve to have access to this report. mr. speaker, i reserve the
balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the distinguished gentleman from california reserves. the distinguish gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield seven minutes to a senior member of the rules committee, subcommittee chairman, ranking member on the committee, mmerce dr. burgess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for seven minutes. mr. burgess: thank you for yielding. today i rise in opposition to the rule providing for consideration of h.con.res 24, to release the special counsel's investigation report, a report that i may note has not yet been issued. the resolution we're considering here today will not change the law. it will not increase transparency. it will provide no new benefit to the american people. quite simply, this resolution merely states current law. this resolution simply restates current department of justice
protocol. we had a member in this house who is a physician, a member of the other party, former congressman mcdermott of washington state, and i remember one time republicans offered a sense of congress resolution that had something to do with taxes. the gentleman took to the floor of the house and said, if you want to do something about taxes, do something about taxes. but a sense of congress resolution, you might as well be sending a get well card to the i.r.s. so that's the force with which we are exercising our congressional time today. as speaker pelosi and the democratic leadership decided to use valuable legislative time to consider a resolution that changes nothing. it does not serve the american people. the time that we have spent debating this resolution, we could have been discussing more
serious matters before this body and let's run through a few of them. the born alive abortion survivors protection act has been brought to the floor 17 times, and yet the current democratic leadership refuses to bring up this legislation up for a vote. i might remind the body, this bill is not about abortion, but saving the lives of children who are in fact born alive. you know, i don't make it a habit of watching "60 minutes" on television, but last sunday night, "60 minutes" had a news story on the dramatic advances in the treatment and perhaps, perhaps inching towards a cure for sickle cell disease. sickle cell disease is a painful condition, i witnessed many times at a resident at parkland hospital back in the 1970's. for years sickle cell received very little attention.
now, i'm happy to say in the last congress, to the leadership of danny davis of illinois, our subcommittee worked on and passed his resolution, dealing with sickle cell. it finally was passed by the senate in october of last year, and it was signed into law by the president last december. . as a consequence the push for sickle cell research has continued. the cures for the 21st century, which this congress worked on in the previous -- at the end of the previous administration, certainly can be given some credit for that. but it was -- i have to tell you what is dramatic to have the director of the n.i.h. interviewed on "60 minutes" talking about a cure for sickle cell. our work we do here is important. it does impact the lives of real people. i think that is just one dramatic example. well, another example was the first tax reform in 31 years.
signed into law last year here we're a month out from tax day. we could use this time to strengthen the progress we made on the tax reform that was passed last year in the last congress we helped american people keep morer of their hard-earned money. we should work to continue that momentum. making them permanent for the middle class. we could be discussing the democrats' government-run bureaucratic topdown health care plan that would strip hardworking americans of their private health insurance and offer less coverage at more expense to american taxpayers. but we're not. today we could be talking about patent abuse entities, patent trolls, particularly troublesome in the eastern district of texas where most those cases are litigated. the house could consider the troll act legislation i
introduced for three terms of congress to limit entities and protect americans' intellectual property. we could be using this time to discuss our nation's critical need for border security to protects the american people and defend our borders. in february of 2019, the shortest month of the year, only 28 days more than 75,000 people that we know of, crossed the border without legal status. excess of 100% increase from the same period last year. people argue whether that's an emergency. i believe that it is. we could be talking about that. in a week which more than 150 people lost their lives, we could be using this time to discuss aviation safety and does congress need to do anything further to ensure the continued safety of the american traveling public? time and again we found that
members on the other side of the dais are far more interested in discrediting the president than working on policy that will help the american people. this president, during the first two years and two months of this administration, has probably been more productive than any presidency in the last 50 years. finally, mr. speaker, we could be using this time to address the false and misleading comments that a member of the judiciary committee made about the department of health and human services. last month the member of this house grossly mischaracterized the work being done by the department of health and human services to care for unaccompanied alien children by stating that the office of refugee resettlement created quoting here an environment of systemic sexual assaults by health and human service staff on unaccompanied alien children, close quote.
mr. speaker, that accusation is false. it was made without that member having ever actually visited a facility. those comments are discredit to the effort by dedicated personnel of the office of refugee resettlement. those employees to deal with the problem that dates back to the obama administration when the office of refugee resettlement was unprepared for the task. if democrats -- would the gentleman yield an additional minute? mr. woodall: two minutes. mr. burgess: if you don't like the work the office of refugee reset manyment are doing, you are in the majority. you have the ability to introduce legislation and pass legislation to do something different. instead of standing here today discussing this superfluous resolution, the democrats could be using this time to change a law that they clearly don't like.
at this point, mr. speaker, may i ask unanimous consent to place into the record a letter from the agency of children with families. regarding this issue. re's the bottom line, that unanimous consent agreed to? house democrats do not like the president of the united states. we know that. less than three months into the 116th congress, the democrats have shown they will work against president trump to the detriment of the american people. we're here in the united states house of representatives to serve the american people. and the legislation we're considering here today will not do that. president trump has purged us at the state of the union asked all members present to reject the politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution and embrace the bountless potential of cooperation, compromise -- boundless potential of cooperation, compromise, and common good. i also believe this is possible and recommend we get on with the task. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore:
congressman from georgia reserve? the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. desaulnier: thank you, mr. speaker. it's an honored to be recognized by you. mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, the distinguished chair of the committee on house administration, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren gren: i rise in support of this resolution today. we have a responsibility to the american people to uphold the constitution and rule of law. we also have an obligation as a separate and equal branch of government to act as a check on the executive branch. without access to necessary information, we can't fulfill our actually prescribed duties. we must have not only this report, but the evidence collected to support the report. if the president has nothing to hide, then he will also support this resolution by tweet or verbal approval. i am proud to be a co-sponsor of this resolution.
it's very important for our country. i yield back to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desaulnier: thank you. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, the distinguished chairman of the committee on the judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, commercial, and administrative law, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this resolution. special counsel mueller's investigation has resulted in 199 criminal charges against 39 people and entities. seven people have pleaded guilty and five people have been sentenced to prison. this investigation has been conducted on behalf of the american people. and they are entitled to know the results of this investigation. this investigation was begun to
safeguard our democracy. and the american people deserve to know the results of this investigation. president trump has repeatedly sought to attack and discredit the investigation. labeling it a witch-hunt and contemplating firing the special counsel. the president's pick for attorney general bill barr has made it clear during his confirmation hearing will he only follow d.o.j. policies convenient for the president. therefore it's up to congress to make sure that documents related to the special counsel's investigation are preserved and publish. that's why i introduced the special counsel transparency act with congressman doggett to acquire the publication of the report. no one person should decide what the public gets to see. the american people have a right to come to their cone conclusions and know justice was served. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the american people. allow them to see the results of the investigation conducted their -- on their bea bring transparency to this process, support the resolution, and signal a willingness to respect the right of the american people to see the consequences
anti-results of this important investigation which again was begun to safeguard our democracy. this shouldn't be a republican or democratic issue. i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in our effort to preserve our democratcy. with it i -- our democrat swifment that i yield back. -- democracy. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to ask my friend from rhode island before he left the floor, the bill that you introduced was that also a house resolution or h.r. to insist on the revealing? i yield. mr. cicilline: the legislation i introduced is an h.r. but if the point of your question is that a more effective way to do it, i would welcome support on my resolution. i haven't been as successful getting my republican colleagues to join us. we're hoping this resolution is a way for to you find your way to a transparency, democracy, and the spirit of bipartisanship. and letting the american people know the result. mr. woodall: i appreciate him
introducing the bill. i think that's an important distinction, mr. speaker. that's what you have heard largely. you heard it in the rules committee. you heard it down here on the floor. is that there are lots of things we could be doing here. and if we wanted to pass a law that insisted that the entire report was released, those parts that are prohibited from being released under current law and those parts intended to be released under current law, we could do that. that's just not what we're doing. what we're doing is saying you know what current law is? follow current law. follow current law. we the house of representatives have thought about it and in our deliberative wisdom we're prepared to announce that we believe current law should be followed. signed u.s. house of representatives. there are those who would have you believe this is something more than that. it's not. nothing wrong with what we're doing today except that it's not a particularly valuable use of time. when i opened, mr. speaker, you were not in the chair i mentioned i think we do great damage to trust in your-u our
republic when we seek division instead of highlighting our unity. to suggest that we're down here doing something to protect our republic from its inevitable demise is just ridiculous. no such thing is happening here on the floor today. all that's happening on the floor today is we're saying we the duly elected members of the u.s. house of representatives believe u.s. law should be followed. i agree. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. desaulnier: in response to my friend from georgia, i want to agree and maybe we disagree a little bit. i do think this is important. and i think it's the unusual circumstances. a lot of us -- a lot of things that we have no control -- direct control over have brought us to this circumstance. social media and the use of social media in our elections is relatively new coming from the bay area where so much of this was the genesis happened.
i think it is important. in think there's lacking hyperbole is something that sometimes doesn't happen in this chamber, but i think it's not high ber poely to say -- hyperbole that the u.s. house says the law should be followed to its letter. i think we agree. i don't want to look for a way to disagree. with that i now ask, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i don't he know what's in the mueller report. neither do you. the 34er7b people -- american people don't know what's in the mueller report, but they want to know. and i want to know, as you do. and why not? 81% of the american people polled say they want to know. that includes 79% of the
republicans. that's good news. because what we do know without knowing the details of the mueller report is that really bad stuff happened in the last election. some of it was in a campaign. and some of it was in a foreign country that is our severe adversary. i speak, of course, of vladimir putin's russia. but the bad stuff, a former campaign foreign policy advisor, indicted and convicted. a former campaign manager, on his way to jail, mr. manafort. a former campaign aid and manafort's long-time junior business partner, indicted. a former foreign policy national security advisor pleaded guilty, mr. flynn. this is high levels of a campaign where crimes are not
just being discussed. there have been convictions and guilty pleas. what's behind all of that? we need to know. incidentally, mr. speaker, the american people are footing the bill for this. about $25 million as far as we can tell. they've got a right to know. but in addition to whatever happened in the campaign, really bad stuff happened in russia. we know from our own intelligence agencies that russia made a concerted effort and determined effort and well financed effort to interfere in our election. nother minute. mr. desaulnier: an additional 30 seconds. mr. welch: outside interference goes to the heart of our democracy. the most important challenge for our country is that we, the
citizens of this country, make the decision on who is our president. who are our senators, who are our representatives. we have to get to the bottom of what russia did, how they did it so we can take steps to make certain that that does not happen in the future and it's the american people who decide who is their leader. . release the mueller report. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'm looking for something to disagree with my friend from vermont about. i didn't disagree. i thought that was a thoughtful presentation. he doesn't know what's in the mueller report and the american people don't know what's in the mueller report because as of today there's no mueller report. he only reason we don't know
what's in it is because it hasn't been released. he hasn't released it and hands that to the attorney general yet. let me tell you what the american general has said, mr. speaker. the attorney general has committed to being transparent with congress and the public, consistent with the rules of the law. i don't think we would ask anything different of him. the attorney general has committed to providing as much information he can consistent with current regulations. i don't think we'd ask anything different of him than that. certainly this resolution doesn't ask anything of him other than that. he says his objective and goal is to get as much information he can to the public. that's exactly what this resolution asks for, exactly whatess -- what he's already committed to. i am in a position in life where i can do the right thing and not care about the consequences, i can truly be independent. well, that doesn't just mean truly independent from pressure put on him from the white house. it also means truly independent from statements of opinion sent
to him by the u.s. house. he's going to do the right thing as allowed by the law and resolutions. if he doesn't this house can act and try to push a different -- a different outcome. just understand that that is not what this resolution does today. it's simply a statement of fact. my friend from california, there are those members in congress sometimes they speak and you want to get out your sharp stick, mr. speaker, and poke them a little bit harder. they don't calm you down. they rile you up. my friend from california's thoughtful words always recenter me and remind me what we have together. and he's right about hyperbole. i don't want to mischaracterize this resolution. it does do one thing that's not available in current law today. and that is that it makes the official position of the united states house known. i have always presumed that the attorney general would follow the law. this resolution says we expect the attorney general to follow
the law. and with that it's not that it does nothing. it's just that it does something very little, perhaps our time would be better spent elsewhere. i support the underlying premise. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desauliner: i thank my friend for pointing out i am not a poker, that i may be trying to be thoughtful. maybe it because it was because i was once registered a republican. i do think this conversation is important on multiple levels and i appreciate the fact that you are here to present your side of the aisle's position. i think there is a danger for us to resume sort of to our corners and this is an instance where i really think it's important and hopefully it's news worthy to the media and to the general public that we are coming to this moment and although it's a resolution, i still think it's significant without divulging in
hyperbole. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to my friend from colorado, a distinguished member of the rules committee, mr. perlmutter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: i thank the gentleman from california, and i thank the gentleman from georgia. i've not heard you two be so dis-- so agreeable. disagreeable is what you usual are, but agreeable. there's reason there is agreement here is because we all want to see what's in this report. and i rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying resolution, and i'd like to remind everybody about what the mueller investigation is about. russia interfered in the 201 u.s. -- 2016 u.s. presidential election with, in my opinion, the goal of helping mr. trump to be elected. it was confirmed by the u.s. and senate house intelligence committees. this should concern every american, republican, democrat,
or independent. in response this unpress departmented attack on our election -- unprecedented attack on our elections, robert mueller was appointed as special counsel by the justice department to follow the facts wherever they may lead, whether they complicate people or exonerate people. we -- implicate people or exonerate people. we need to understand who was involved, how it was accomplished and ultimately hold those responsible for attack on our election accountable under our laws. this investigation will also ensure we better protect our elections in the future. now, we've had two convictions of mr. mana fort. seven -- manafort. seven guilty pleas and companies indicted as part of the mueller investigation. six of the people indicted were part of president trump's inner circle with the campaign and business. so it is important for us to understand precisely what is in
the report and i appreciate the fact that the rules committee unanimously supported this particular rule and the underlying resolution and i say to my friend from georgia, you're right. the law is what it is. and it says should be withheld until fully written and prepared. and then if mr. barr does what he says he was going to do, it will be available to all of us. and we are emphasizing that point. because americans should know precisely what happened and where this investigation has led. with that i'd yield back to my friend from california and thank him for bringing this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i would tell my friend, i do not have any speakers remaining at this point and so i'll reserve. mr. desauliner: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms.
jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. i thank you. e: let me thank the gentleman from california and congratulate him on his new distinguished post on the rules committee. and my good friend, who i've seen quite frequently over the years, at the rules committee and i've known of his consistent concern with the rule of law and truly appreciate his comments today as it relates to the rule of law and would like my comments to be strictly on that question and really the american people of whom each and every one of us come here to represent. i don't want to recount in detail, but i do want to make mention we know that the intelligence committee in january, 2017, concluded, and that is the intelligence
community concluded in a report that russian president putin ordered and influenced the campaign of 2016 and the presidential election and we all know recently that there were attempts to influence the 2018 election. we won't dwell on that. we won't dwell on the fact that there is discussions and review in the special counsel's work dealing with collusion or the questions dealing with the campaign of the present president and russia. i believe that the real point of this is to answer the questions of the american people. if we say that the purpose of appointing a special counsel to oversee the investigation is to ensure that the american public would have full confidence in the integrity of the investigation, regardless of
what it says. i'm here to say, regardless of what the mueller report will say -- and we know there will be comments made by the general public, leaders of congress, and that is their right as americans. but we want to reinforce the fact that the d.o.j. regulations emselves, say that investigations' results should be made fully extended to the american public in the public interest and that the results of that report should be made available to the american people. obviously being concerned about persons that are mentioned with no relevance whatsoever. as a lawyer, i would want to make sure such protections occur, but it is true that special counsel mueller previously served in the department of justice as a prosecutor and director of the and in the democratic
republican administrations where he built competence, fairness, bipartisanship. with that if mind, we thank him for the work he's done that's shown a number of guilty pleas and other responses, but the main point is the american people, to know their government adheres to the rule of law and integrity of the constitution. all we're asking today is to reflect in a sense of congress that you, the american people, that my colleagues in this house and senate, should have the right to see the full report. i ask for support of the underlying bill, and i ask us to do it in a bipartisan way. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd ask my friend from california if he has any speakers remaining. mr. desauliner: no. that's our last speaker. we have no more. mr. woodall: unless the gentleman would like to close -- mr. desauliner: i'm anticipating your brilliant close. i will try to follow you. mr. woodall: i appreciate the gentleman.
i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i hope folks pay attention to some of those things that have brought folks together today, and i hope folks pay attention to those that haven't brought us together today. we talked about whether there has been overstatement and hyperbole, whether it comes from that end of pennsylvania avenue or this end of pennsylvania avenue. none of us are advantaged by that. it breeds more distrust in the american public, breeds more distrust in this institution. we've talked about who's to blame within the administration. of course, there's news today of paul manafort's sentence. not for anything related to the election, but for things related to his private business practices. there will be efforts to conflate those two investigations. those are two different investigations. i think the american people are disadvantaged if they are led to believe that those sentences are
related to the election of the president of the united states. but what you've heard is a lot of unia numberity, as you would -- unanimity, as you would expect we are a nation of laws and it should be followed and the american people the boss of each and every one of us, whether we work on that end of pennsylvania avenue or this end of pennsylvania avenue, have a right to know what their tax dollars have paid for and what their government is up to. i find that very encouraging that we have that sense of agreement here today, mr. speaker. what is noticeably absent in this resolution is the dramatic overreach that i think has characterized most of the work we have done so far in 2019. things that could have been partnership issues have been pushed further and further and further out to the edge of the political continuum that they became partisan issues.
this resolution does not make those mistakes of the past. and to my friend from california's point, these things are done incrementally. trust is built incrementally. relations grow incremently and success happens incremently. it is my hope, -- happens incrementally. it is my hope, mr. speaker, that rule of law, trust in and of the american people will begin today to flourish in ways perhaps those common themes have not thus far and both parties play a role in that disappointing outcome. but success has to begin on one day, mr. speaker. perhaps success begins today. i serve on the transportation and infrastructure committee. there's no such thing as a republican road or democratic bridge. there's no such thing as sitting in traffic on a democratic highway or missing your child's soccer game because of
malfunctions on a republican road. we're all in this together, and that is true more often than not. i do not plan to offer a previous question today, mr. speaker, because this isn't one of those issues that dramatically -- as my friend suggests in the rules committee, we passed this out -- i think our first voice vote of the year out of the rules committee and intend to do exactly that today. with that, mr. speaker, i appreciate my friend from california for yielding the time and leading the debate today and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. desauliner: thank you, mr. speaker. again, it's a pleasure to see you up there and to my friend from georgia, his long, illustrious public career, i want to thank him. i want to thank him for his commomity here today. i can't help but think so many americans now and people who are filled with adrenaline and
hyperbole talk about what a difficult time this is. and i wouldn't underestimate the challenges ahead of us, but inarguably, a more difficult time, i was thinking of mr. lincoln's comments of appealing to the better angels of our nature. and perhaps this is a turning point. and certainly we will be tested and we will fail on occasion, but to my friend, for whatever time both of us have left here, i'd like to personally say to the degree we can find things are of interest to your district and my district, i'd like to find those things. i can't help but comment on my observation about providential americans in history and mr. mueller is -- i was reading about him and his comments when he was f.b.i. director in the context of his amazing life and career as a combat veteran, a bronze star winner in the marine corps. i think of my father who is a
marine corps combat veteran who is buried in arlington. and my dad and all marines -- although i was not one -- would like to always recite searcher fidelis. special -- semper fidelis. the special counsel assures me in ways i find profound is he talked about fidelity as he talked to his agents. that the fidelity to this constitution, to this country and the truth will find us through to the path we want to take and success as we look for the better angels of our nature. so, mr. speaker, this is a simple vote but an important vote. we need to get to the bottom of what happened and put faith in the special counsel's findings and put faith in the american public and the people that they can devise their own truth when we give them this investigation's report. you either believe the public and congress should see the report or you don't. it looks like we agree they
should. we owe it to our constituents and the american people and to future generations to do the right thing always but i think today to release the report. mr. speaker, i ask for a yes vote on the rule and the rule and i yield back. i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, 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 please rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule 20. the house will resume proceedings on post poned -- postponed questions at a later time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass h.res. 206, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 206, resolution acknowledging that
the lack of sunlight and transparency in financial transactions and corporate formation poses a threat to our national security and our economy's security and supporting efforts to close related loopholes, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and on this ir remarks legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. waters: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.res. 206, a resolution i have introduced to inform the congress and the american people about the persistent money laundering loopholes and problems that continue to plague the american
financial system. i am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor in recognition of sunshine week. as part of sunshine week, the financial services committee is shining a bright light on money laundering and discussing ways to strengthen our country's anti-money laundering and counterterrorism finance efforts. criminals like drug traffickers, human traffickers, fraudsters, rogue governments and other corrupt individuals and organizations know our financial system well and work hard to find ways to circumvent our anti-money laundering laws. congress has enacted numerous laws to improve the transparency of financial transactions that touch institutions in the united states and those on each end of a financial transaction. we have created reporting mechanisms, strengthened law
enforcement, and intelligence capacities and promoted responsible privacy-protecting information regimes to ensure that both the industry and the government have the tools needed to rid the economy of these illicit funds. however, there's still glaring problems and loopholes in our system that congress must address. the resolution i've introduced highlights two significant loopholes that remain. the lack of transparency in, number one, the arts and antiquities industry and, number two, the real estate industry. first, we know that ethnic and cultural artifacts are stolen and traded to garner funds for bad actors. according to the antiquities coalition, quote, the united states is the largest destination for archaeological andth knowlogical objects from around -- and ethnological objects from around the world. we know isis have sold these
treasures to fund their operations which the head of unesco, the united nations cultural heritage agency, said was worth millions of dollars and conducted a, quote, industrial scale, quote-unquote. however, today dealers in arts and antiquities are exempt from the bank secrecy act, creating a huge loophole for bad actors to launder funds. second, the significance of the real estate loophole in the united states was acknowledged in 2017 by the financial crimes enforcement network, that is fincen, when it had orders, that is g.t.o.'s, requiring limited beneficial ownership information to be disclosed and reported in some high-end real estate transactions. in fact, fincen has noted, quote, about 30% of the transactions covered by the
g.t.o.'s involved a beneficial owner or purchaser representative that is also the subject of a previous suspicious activity report, unquote. the movement of illicit funds throughout the global financial system raises numerous questions regarding the actors who are involved in these money laundering schemes and where the money is going. this is precisely why the financial services committee is investigating the questionable financing provided to president trump and the trump organization s by banks like deutsche bank to finance its real estate properties. the committee is also concerned that trump branded and managed condo buildings, for example, have taken millions from suspect russians or individuals from former soviet states through cash transactions, some well above the market value, and many through shell companies.
congress must close these loopholes and financial institutions, including the biggest banks also must do their part and fuelly comply with our bsaml laws. we continue to see, not only failures in compliance, but also egregious acts where money laundering and terror finance are facilitated. further, many of our largest financial institutions have facilitated money laundering through the our u.s. financial system from abroad. one scheme was carried out in deutsche bank's moscow and london branches using mirror trading in which corrupt traders in russia managed to move $10 billion in illillis funds out of rush -- illicit funds out of russia and selling them for u.s. dollars in london. deutsche bank was fined nearly $630 million for allowing this mirror trading scheme to take
place. another scheme involved dax bank where $230 billion in suspicious funds moved from russia and other former soviet states through one of the bank's small estonia branches to several u.s. financial financial institutions. we also know that real estate is frequently used to launder dirty money. bad actors, like russian oligarchs and clepto kratts, often use anonymous and shell companies to buy commercial and real estate, that is residential real estate, to hide and clean their money. today, these all-cash schemes are exempt from the bank secrecy act. this must stop. in passing this resolution today, we also remind our colleagues in the banking industry of their responsibilities. in closing, mr. speaker, this resolution has benefited from
the comments of the ranking member of the financial services committee, mr. mchenry, and other members of the committee. and i thank them for their thoughtful considerations of the resolution. so i would urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution that recognizes the need to close these loopholes and to urge financial institutions to comply with the law. so thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: well, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mchenry: mr. speaker, thank you so much. and i thank the chair of the house financial services committee, chairwoman waters, for authoring this resolution. i rise in support of this resolution. i look forward to working with the gentlewoman from california to incorporate its basic principles into future legislation produced by our committee to tackle the illicit
drug trade, international financing of -- that moves around the globe that is illicit in nature as well as combating human trafficking and using the financial system to traffic in human beings, which i think is absolutely abhorrent. this resolution reflects the financial service's committee's long stand financial service committee's long-standing emphasis on ensuring the integrity of the financial system. the size and scope of that system, along with the preeminent role of u.s. dollar and global trade, requires us to remain vigilant against illicit finance, money laundering and other significant threats. already, this congress the house passed several of our committee's bills designed to identify new risks in illicit finance and to strengthen our banks' cooperation with law
enforcement authority. we're also looking forward to addressing a more comprehensive reform of the processes known as the bank secrecy act in order to crack down on money laundering much more effectively. we believe technology can be a great driver of those reforms and more efficiently and effectively enforce those laws. we're working together to achieve that bipartisan outcome and update to that very important piece of legislation. and this, i think, represents a down payment, rhetorically, on that interest that we have of combating illicit finance wherever it may be. i hope that we can continue to engage in meaningful -- in a meaningful way in that bipartisan dialogue to achieve the reforms of the bank secrecy act with the importance of safeguarding our security, upholding a financial system that's open, transparent, efficient, that's in many ways the envy of the rest of the world without unduly burdening
businesses in a manner that ends up turning away legitimate trade and commerce. striking that balance is obviously that fine art this congress seeks to do and we hope to do that well coming out of our committee. now, republicans and democrats should also be able to agree these laws and regulations require us to strike a balance. there has to be a stated objective. i'm hopeful the chairwoman will continue to work with us based off that principle. i'm encouraged by that opportunity on the bank secrecy act and illicit finance for us to tackle those items. and i thank the chairwoman for sponsoring this resolution. i ask my colleagues to support it. i would retain the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, a senior member of the financial services committee, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you very much, chairlady. this is, mr. speaker, a very
important and timely resolution because in recent years, the lack of sunlight and transparency in financial transactions and corporate formation has brought us to the forefront of the very dangerous role that dark money plays in our financial system. money laundering loopholes in markets like real estate, the arts, antiquities can be taken advantage of by criminals who facilitate their nefarious deeds, and according, mr. speaker, to the financial action task force, real estate alone accounted for 1/3 of all the criminal assets confiscated worldwide between 2011 and 2013, in that three-year period. nd even more concerning,
some of these transactions are conducted by anonymous shell companies that are exploiting loopholes in our financial system, creating a lack of transparency or who really is the beneficial owner of the assets. and this is very important, mr. speaker. this critical resolution authored by my colleague and chairman, ms. maxine waters, recognizes how important this issue is not only to the stability of our financial system, but to our national ecurity of our great nation. and it urges that much more be done with these loopholes. and let us shine a bright light into the darkest corners of our financial system. and that is why, mr. speaker, i rise to encourage my colleagues to support this resolution that
will protect our financial system from abuse and corruption and hopeful that it will be unanimous with all of our colleagues supporting this important resolution. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: i yield to a new member -- let me start over again. i would like to yield to mr. gooden, three minutes for purposes of his statement the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. oodgood i rise in support of this resolution. and the threats that criminals pose. this bill reaffirms that the house of representatives supports efforts currently under
way in american and international financial institutions to identify bad actors and hold them accountable for their crimes. the stakes couldn't be higher. gotten transparency has a upt people, it serves as network. when criminals seek an sbrling connected system, we must bring clarity. as we enhance financial transparency, we diminish a criminal's ability to commit crimes. i would consider this an important part of president trump's efforts to secure our borders who are trying to infiltrate our country in drug trafficking. we need to build a wall at our southern border, we need to be securing our economy who use the united states to conceal, launder and move money generated from illegal activity.
given the global nature and terrorist financing, a secure national framework is essential to the integrity of our financial systems here at home. we should be doing all we can to give financial institutions the tools they need to catch the criminals or engage in money lauppedering and terrorism financing. i support this bill and thank the ranking member and chairwoman waters for the time this afternoon. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ms. waters: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: thank you, madam chair and i thank the ranking member as well. and i join the chorus of persons complementing you on jobs well done and this is wonderful to
help people across the globe. mr. speaker, madam chair, i support h.res. 206 because it addresses the laundering of money at the foundation of criminality. nd when it comes to arts and antiquities, according to an report by u.b.s., the united states remains the largest art market valued at $26.6 billion and accounts for 42% of the global total in 2017. this means, of course, that the united states is likely to be the largest destination for stolen ethnic and cultural art. black markets, black market art, black market money. that's why we have to find a way to prevent the laundering of this money.
the united states of america should not allow ourselves to be perpetrate year who dassardly deeds. example might be syria, where you have terrorists who will take stolen artifacts and find a way to put them into commerce and use that money to support criminal activity. we must find a way to close the loopholes that allow persons in this country to purchase these artifacts and allow that money to get back to those who would perform these dastardly deeds. dass tarreds, with a d. this must be stopped. this resolution is a great step in the right direction to stop the perpetration. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a long time member of the financial services committee, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. lynch: good afternoon, mr. speaker. i thank the chair woman for her leadership. i rise in strong support of house resolution 206, a resolution that acknowledges the threat to our national security posed by loopholes in our financial transaction laws. today our anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism laws are dangerously outdated. billions of dollars in bribes are paid around the world and the amount of money of money aundered is 2% to 5% of global g.d.p. far too much of this cash flow comes to the united states'
financial institutions. the international community agrees that financial action task force has said that we have significant gaps in our security laws. by passing this legislation, congress can somehow it understands that illicit finance networks are the root and branch of any terrorist or criminal organizations' operations. we understand by addressing those gaps in those loopholes we could move towards a safer society and a safer world. money laundering and other inancial crimes supports human trafficking, terrorism and endanger americans every day and we need to do more. i strongly urge my colleagues to support house resolution 206 and i thank the chairman again for her timeliness and i yield become.
the speaker pro tempore: gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: i want to note for the house that the original draft of this resolution that was put forward and made public by committee democrats was not one that committee republicans had vetted. and in that conversation, we had revised the text of this resolution. so after today is the original text, chairwoman waters had offered -- she undertook through her staff and through my staff and we worked out the changes to the language here is something that should receive unanimous approval of the house of representatives. in fact, it states some very important things that we find important in house financial services committee. now if there is illicit financing and our laws are not detecting it, that is a problem,
is it not? we should address that problem however it manifests itself. using art work and real estate but would use money in order to possess that artwork and real estate. we are getting to that money in our financial markets and getting at that. there is bipartisan agreement in the language here is not the original language chairwoman waters offered. but in her effort of bipartisanship, she worked with committee republicans, changed the resolution and now before us we have a new resolution. this new resolution should meet the approval of everyone in this house. i want to state that very clearly. this is not a democrat product -- actually it is, she did author it but she was willing to hear our feedback on the republican side. that's helpful.
this would be the fifth bill that we passed out of the house financial services committee that received bipartisan support. that's a good sign. that's a good sign in a broken washington that we can actually do some sensible things and outlined here, this resolution got out of prescriptive positions that we are still negotiateding on this idea of beneficial ownership, which our colleague, subcommittee chair maloney has been working on intensely as french hill from arkansas and blaine luetkemeyer on the republican side. and they are working on the contents of that. so remove that language and i think that is a very hopeful thing. didn't want to get into the mechanics of how we came to this, but it's important for the house to note. before us is a new resolution that should meet the support of the house.
and so, with that, i reserve the balance of my time, but i do nt to finish by saying this, chairwoman waters, you said you worked with us on this. i'm grateful for that, recognizing there are more democrats than republicans in the house, you could have passed this resolution if you saw fit on a bipartisan basis, but you wanted bipartisan outcome. and so, with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i cannot describe how pleased i am working with mr. mchenry and the way that he as expressed to you in his presentation how we have worked together. and i thank him for that and i'm very appreciative of that and will continue to work on those issues. i yield two minutes to the the
gentlewoman from new york, the chair of the subcommittee on investor protection, entrepreneurship and capital markets. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: i rise in support of this very important ressligse. criminals and terrorists have used our financial system to launder their dirty money and to hide all of their assets of the this issue is incredibly important to me, because i have been working on legislation to crack down on anonymous shell companies for about 10 years. and chairwoman waters has always been a strong supporter and is an original co-sponsor of my legislation. i want to highlight one particular passage from this resolution, which talks about the pilot program that fincen conducted in 2016 where they collected beneficial ownership information and certain real
estate transactions in manhattan and miami. and the findings from the pilot program were shocking. they found that about 30% of the transactions involved a beneficial owner that had previously been the subject of a suspicious activity report from a bank, which strongly suggests that criminals and other bad actors are using anonymous shell companies to launder or hide money requiring companies to disclose their owners would provide transparency to law enforcement. it would also protect americans from terrorism financing by cracking down on the ability of terrorists to get financing in our country. and it would also help financial institutions keep the bad actors out of the financial system. that's why i have been working
so hard to pass my financial ownership bill and i look forward to work in a bipartisan way with ranking member mchenry and others to address this important issue. i must say this issue was brought to me by law enforcement and told me they will be tracking money that they think s terrorism financing. if the is an l.l.c., they cannot get information about who owns this real estate or company in this country. i urge strong support for the chair woman's resolution and i urge my colleagues to support it s well and support the financial ownership bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: i have no further speakers and am prepared to close. i would enwire of the majority if they have additional speakers?
ms. waters: i have no additional speakers. and am prepared to close. . mr. mchenry: i want to reiterate what my colleague, mrs. maloney, outlined, is an jog going conversation we're having -- is an ongoing conversation we're having around beneficial ownership. we're still working through that process, and i think the talks have been productive. there's a lot of work to do. there's -- there's not quite consensus yet on how we achieve that right balance. but notwithstanding that, you have to look at the contents of the resolution before us. i think this is, while not perfect -- if i drafted the resolution i would have included the international drug trade, human trafficking as two highly important areas that need our attention and focus as policymakers. but that doesn't mean that's a
sent of omission rather than co- mission. isis is targeted in this. i think that's strong -- we have bipartisan agreement that we have to fight this terrorism network and evil ideology that they have put upon the world and how they act out. we have a concerted effort as americans in a bipartisan way to fight them. i'd add to that the regimes in china, russia, north korea as ther state actors that are doing really horrible things in terms of cyberthreats and money laundering, not just a regime, but there are a lot of regimes around the world. this is not a complete resolution, but i think it is worthy of our support. i think this is the first step in that longer conversation about modernizing the bank secrecy act and making sure that
we are targeting illicit financing. and so with that i ask my colleagues to vote for this resolution and look forward to continuing the conversation with my democrat colleagues on more bipartisan outcomes. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: thank you very much. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following letter of general support for house resolution 206 from the fraternal order of police. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. time.inquire how much the speaker pro tempore: jot has five minutes. ms. waters: -- the gentlewoman has five minutes. ms. waters: as we highlight the importance of transparency in our economy, our national security, and the preservation of our rule of law, we cannot ignore the insidious harm that's being done by institutions like
deutsche bank and others that facilitate money laundering and financial crime. cleptocracy around the world and here at home. as the trump family and companies have proven can only thrive with the corporation of willful blindness from financial institutions which move, hide, and launder their ill-gotten money, money that can come in and out of the financial system through investments in real estate, art, and other luxury markets across america. so i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree that we need to close loopholes which allow criminals and terrorists to hide from sunlight and scrutiny and i urge the support. i urge the house to support h.res. 206, as amended. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the baffle her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 206, as amended. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the adoption of house resolution 208 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 12, house resolution 208, resolution providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution, house concurrent resolution 24, expressing the sense of congress that the report of special counsel
mueller should be made available to the public and to congress. and providing for proceedings ring the period of march 15-march 22, 2019. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. 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 resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> madam speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that mr. clay higgins of louisiana be removed 1146. -sponsor from h.r. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i seek unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further
consideration of h.r. 962, the born alive abortion survivors protection act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: under guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee eadership. the gentleman has not been recognized for debate. he house will be in order. he house will be in order. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches.
for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. payne: madam speaker, a year ago this week, our country lost one of its greatest legislators, congresswoman louise slaughter. in 32 years in congress, louise slaughter had never backed down from a righteous fight. here's just one example of congresswoman slaughter's grit. when she arrived in congress, every single clinical trial at the national institute of health was aimed at white men. so congresswoman slaughter secured the first $500 million of federal funding for breast cancer research.
my father and i both had the privilege to serve alongside congresswoman slaughter. we knew her as a fierce champion for women and workers throughout the country. there is something disarming about her kentucky drawl that really made you feel at home. she was a thoughtful leader who could cut bad ideas down with her whit -- wit and determination. every time i left her presence, i left with a smile. congresswoman slaughter was truly one of the best human beings i ever met in my life. her lifetime of service to this nation will be celebrated by the american people for decades, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
>> madam speaker, a few minutes ago i rose to call for a vote on the born alive abortion survivors protection act which requires any baby who survives an abortion to receive the same medical care that any baby born at the same age would receive, and it requires the baby to then be transported to a hospital. as a doctor i strongly believe that every patient, especially these infants born alive, should be given appropriate medical care, and this should not even be a question. new york recently celebrated passing a law that removes protection from babies born alive after an abortion attempt. other states also failed to protect abortion survivors, therefore, it's our duty as members of congress to defend the god-given right to life for every baby in this situation, and it's our duty as compassionate human beings to ensure that these uniquely vulnerable babies receive the care that they deserve. it's past time to vote on h.r.
962, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, today i'd like to speak about my dear friend, congresswoman louise slaughter. ms. shalala: she was a force of nature and trail blazer of women. she was part of the women's right movement, going back to susan b. anthony and fredrick douglass. she would be so proud to see the record number of women elected to congress this year and be an extraordinary mentor. she was the best retail politician i have ever known. i have never served in this body with louise but as a cabinet member i knew her well and joined her in her district eight times and had numerous phone calls over the years. she held degrees in microbiology and public health. her knowledge of health policy,
her political smarts help her shepherd critical legislation. thanks to louise, we have the affordable care act, the violence against women act, the genetic information nondiscrimination act, just to name a few. she was the first chairwoman of the rules committee, and i am proud to now serve on this committee, and it is louise's spirit that keeps us going through long rules meetings. we should aspire to be the person she was, to tirelessly serve our constituents, the constitution, and this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition in -- recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fitzpatrick: madam speaker, it's with a heavy heart that i honor a very special member of bucks county, john. born in philadelphia, john attended father judge high
school and drexel university where he graduated in 1970 with a degree in accounting. he was a respected business executive, having served as c.f.o. of better material corp before becoming the c.f.o. of a creamery. weighs a dedicated man who was dedicated to making our community a better place for public service. he served on the water and sewer authority, the bucks county drug and alcohol commission, and the pennsylvania unemployment compensation board of review. more than anything, however, john was a dedicated family man. he spent some of his most treasured moments with his five grandchildren. madam speaker, we extend our deepest condolences to his beloved wife of 50 years, my dear friend, pat, and their sons, brad and matt. may john, a good, decent, and honorable man, enjoy the eternal reward of the life he spent serving others. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, 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, madam speaker. one year ago this body and our nation lost one of its brightest lights with the passing of an extraordinary congresswoman and our dear friend, louise slaughter. mr. tonko: i first came to know louise in the early 1980's when we served together in the new york state assembly. we remained close until her passing on march 16, 2018. her legacy lives on in many, many ways. it lives on in the renaming of the stock act, an effort i was proud to sponsor last congress. louise's legacy lives in the fair port post office, renamed after louise and her husband, bob, a fitting tribute to a loving couple. thank you to our colleague, joe morelle, for making that happen. her legacy lives in the rochester train station, named after louise after years of her advocacy and determination to make it an improved destination
and a special place of connection. most importantly, her legacy lives in the freshman class of this united states house of representatives. louise used to represent seneca falls and was proud of the women's right movement that had its strongest, deepest roots in upstate new york. this year more than 100 women serve in this body for the first time in american history. of course, if louise were here, she would surely remind us that 100 is much less than half of 435 and that our work was far from over. my friend, louise, know that you are missed. to your entire family, our thoughts and prayers are with you as we mark one year since your passing. today we celebrate an incredible legacy, a legacy that is alive and burning bright with hope. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: madam 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, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to congratulate the american legion on its centennial anniversary.
on friday, march 15, the american legion will celebrate 100 years since it was formed in paris, france, after world war i. more than 1,000 people gathered for the american legion's first caucus at the american club in paris on march 15, 1919. since then, the american legion has grown to be the nation's largest wartime veterans' service organization, boasting more than two million millions and 13,000 posts across all 50 states, the district of columbia, puerto rico, france, mexico, and the philippines. its dedication to veterans, service members and their families extends from local community programs to state and federal public policy initiatives. including the establishment of the veterans administration in 1930 and the g.i. bill in 1944. hundreds of local american legion programs and activities strengthen the nation one community at a time. madam speaker, i thank the american legion for its service and wish its members a happy
100th birthday this friday. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the floor for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. espaillat: thank you, madam speaker. new york suffered a heartbreaking loss with the passing of donald, a career war veteran and accomplished community member. his life was marked by selflessness and perseverance, common threats that guided him to serve his community and his nation. he was raised in a tough environment. discrimination was at its peak. yet, when his nation called on him, he went to war and served honorably as a member of the harlem hell fighters infantry regiment. upon his return, the long standing commitment to service led him to spend 20 years leading efforts to help those in need, veterans, seniors and the underprifrpbled. may he rest in peace and may
they comfort his children and grandchildren. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the remaining part of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> 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. >> thank you, madam speaker. celebrated each march, women's history month serves as a time to honor and recognize the momentus achievement of women who continue to shape the united states today. as we -- what began as a week, a week-long celebration in 1981 is now a month-long celebration starting in 1995. this year i'm especially proud to highlight a group of women making history right now in texas' third congressional district. colin county, texas, has 11 state district courts with 11 presiding judges and seven
county court of law judges. in 2017, in addition of the new judge, served the total women six, meaning for the first time in history, a majority of the court seats are now held by women. but just this year, the election of another woman in texas' 219th district court, there are now seven women serving in the counties' district benches. just 12 years ago there was only one female judge on the counties' benches. while only 33% of the judges throughout the united states are women, colin county is leading the way with 64% of the district court judges' benches held by women judges and i want to salute mason, judge tucker, judge edworth, judge thompson, judge willis, judge mccraw, judge miscle. madam speaker, with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition?
ms. kaptur: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: madam speaker, on monday, the trump administration released what has to be the cruelest and most irresponsible proposed budget in our nation's 243-year history. the trump budget adds trillions of dollars to our national debt, d then the trump budget cuts $1.5 trillion from medicaid, $845 billion from medicare, and $26 billion from social security. meanwhile, it cuts over 90% of the funding for fresh water in the great lakes restoration initiative. we're not going to be able to combat deadly al ga blooms in lake erie. or contain invasive species like the asian carp. or restore the great lakes. and their environmental integrity. the president's promise he would never cut social
security, medicare, or medicaid. and yet he's done exactly that. his proposed budget adds trillions to the national debt, while also undermining the financial pillars of medicare, social security, and medicaid. madam speaker, budgets are a reflection of our values and president trump's values are clearly with the 1%. he's out of step with the majority of the american people. surely those in northern ohio. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> a 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. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute my dear friend and predecessor, louise slaughter. as evidenced by the law statements being made today, her contributions to this institution were immeasurable. louise left a remarkable
legacy. the only woman to chair the rules committee. a stalwart advocate for women and children. a leader who is instrumental in passing landmark health care legislation. what i remember most about louise and what was at the heart of all her accomplishments is how much she cared for her friends and for her community. louise is my dear friend not only on the best of days like when she encouraged me to run for my first elective office, for celebrated with me when i was chosen to be the majority leader of the new york state assembly, but also on the most difficult of days when my daughter lauren passed away, louise was there that afternoon, spending hours at my house with our family. that's just who she was. she had one of the biggest hearts of anyone i know. i am better for having known her and i know that her entire -- our entire country is better for her many years of dedicated service. thank u. may you rest in peace, louise slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:
without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today with my colleagues to honor my friend and colleague, congresswoman louise slaughter. iss spirpe: it is in-- -- ms. speier: i'm consoled by knowing her legacy lives on in this chamber. the brilliant former chair of the powerful rules committee was sharp tongued, sharp witted, and sharp eyed. everyone who knew her was made better by her presence. anyone who came up against her in an argument knew they were facing a steel backbone. but her disarming sense of humor and southern drawl were irresistible. she even taught me how to speak southern. bless your sweetheart doesn't mean bless your sweetheart. congresswoman slaughter knew fake when she saw it and was not afraid to call it out. she knew truth when she saw it and stood strong in its defense. it is in her honor that we must
continue to fight for this democracy that she never gave up on. i hope that we will consider naming the rules committee room in her honor. there are many people i like in our chamber. few i truly love. i loved louise slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much. a year ago we said goodbye to louise slaughter, our dear, dear friend. ms. matsui: louise slaughter was a titan of congress. she was unforgettable. when i first joined the rules committee after getting elected, i was immediately drawn to louise. louise took me under her wing. she even made fun of people that i thought were really wonderful and she laughed because she knew we shared a
joke. honestly, louise was somebody that even made the late hours in the wrules committee -- rules committee even fun, too. with her wittiness and intellect and the fact that beneath it all she absolutely loved serving in this wonderful house. louise lived in perfect balance. she was charming yet intense. witty yet resolute. after spending time with louise, you knew her heart was with the people of new york's -- western new york and you knew she wasn't going to back down from her beliefs. she loved her family. she loved her district a as if they were her family also. and we love louise because she loved everyone and gave us support. we miss you louise. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute.
revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i first met louise slaughter 32 our freshman ng orientation. from the first day she stood out. ouise, unbelievable, kind, beautiful person. she was a born leader. who was thoughtful, mindful, and she didn't take any stuff. i love louise. she called me brother john, i called her sister louise. we miss louise. i can see her standing up on this floor now, speaking truth to power. she never gave up. she never gave in. she kept her faith. and she kept her eyes on the prize. thank you, louise, for your service. i know you are with your
beloved bob. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. and to be able to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. . moore: madam speaker, i am so blessed to have known louise maximumin tosh slaughter and i'm so pleased to speak on her behalf today. louise was a legislator with a capital l. she lived up to the legacy of the ladies of new york. she represented seneca falls not only because it was her district, but she represented it in terms of her sentiments. she was the sponsor of the violence against women act. she was the head of the pro-choice caucus. she it can medical research. -- she did medical research --
she focused on medical research for women. she was a thought leader consistent with her training in chemistry. she fought to decrease the amount of antibiotics, eliminate antibiotics in animals for consumption. she led on the issues of getting rid of led -- lead. and also she really understood chemistry. the first time she saw bob slaughter, she said i just got to have him and she went and got him. she was a bridge to leadership. these freshmen would have really, really enjoyed being around the head of the rules committee, their bridge to the leadership. let me tell you i loved her because she really knew how to make people happy. madam speaker, she gave me an orange purse because she thought that orange was a happy color and that i deserved to be surrounded with it. with that i yield back. the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, it is fitting that we're honoring congresswoman slaughter during women's history month because her legacy is planted firmly in the history of books. she wasn't the daughter of wealth or privilege but she traveled from the coal fields of kentucky to become the first woman ever to chair the house rules committee. louise's 30 years of service here embodied what it means to be a public servant. writing the stock act and genetic affings nondiscrimination act. i could go on and on. there was no special interest too influential for her to take on. no politician too powerful. many of us saw her determination firsthand whether we were with her on an issue or especially if we were on the opposite side. we're all better for it. this chamber and this country are he better for it. i'm proud to have worked alongside her. aim glad she will be joining so many pioneering women in the
actual women's hall of fame this year. on behalf of all the members of this chamber, and her staff, especially in the rules committee, let me just say we loved her and we miss her a lot. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for ime? the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 36 u.s.c. 2302 and the order of the house of january 3, 2019, of the following members n the part of the house to the united states hall cost memorial council. -- holocaust memorial council. the clerk: mr. zeldin of new york. mr. kustoff of tennessee. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 2761 and the order of
the house of january 3, 2019, of the following member on the part of the house to the british american inter parliamentary group. the clerk: mr. holding of north arolina. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy the nuary 3, 2019, gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. thank you, t: madam chairman. what we're going to do right now is we're going to hopefully only take about a half-hour but walkthrough the continuing theme of how at least our math and particularly in our office
we have been trying to put together sort of a unified theory of do we deal with the reality of what's happening in our country with our demographics, we're getting older, much faster, our birth rates have fallen dramatically, repeatedly we have come up here with other boards that a basically show over the next 30 years the greatest threat to our economy, to our society, to our country's priorities is the fact that our interests, social security, medicare, health care entitlement costs consume everything. the rest of the budget is functionally in balance. and i know this is uncomfortable because it's one of those things that's hard for us to talk about. it's not republican or democrat. it's demographics. it's math. part of that base line to understand, 2008 to 2028, take those 20 years, 91% of the spending increase here in washington, if you remove
interest, 91% of the spending increase is -- i think it does include interest, is interest, social security, health care entitles. we need to understand the basic math. now how do you actually deal with it? how do you maximize economic growth? how do you maximize labor force participation? how do you encourage people to actually take -- if we built the incentives to actually stay in the labor force longer, how do you actually embrace technology, particularly disruptive technology, that crashes the prices and makes our society healthier and more efficient? how do we have an honest conversation of those earned benefits and build them so they have incentives in there that if you are fit and healthy and happy you are willing to stay in the labor force longer. are there certain benefits we can can design into these? those are are our five pillars. today we'll do something that's fun. we grabbed a handful of
concepts that are about technology. and the tough part when you start talking about disruptive technology is it makes you giddy for what the future is and the opportunities, but there is this thing we call couplecy, particularly in economics, incumbency, the incumbent business. the incumbent medical provider, the incumbent over here. these technologies are going to be a real challenge. the running joke in our office is how many of us went to blockbuster video last weekend? we sort of woke up one night and all decided to go home and hit a button called hbogo, netflix. we no longer stood in line and got movie suggestions and went home with a shiny disk. we're going to walkthrough first some of the health care i.t. hy this is so important is i want you to first think about. so technologies that are starting to roll out. if you got to take home or had in the back of the office or we
had in the back of the floor here something that looked like a gigantic kazoo that you could blow into and told you whether you had the flu, or whether you had a bacterial infection, and instantly it could ping your medical records that are you carrying around both on your phone or the cloud and instantly order your antivirals and they were delivered to your house. did we just crash parts of the price of health care? of course we did. . did we make incumbent businesses that are challenge their business model because you use this technology instead of going to the urgent care center or going to the emergency room or going to the hospital or even going to the pharmacy? but we have to be willing to think about these things, and these type of technologies are rolling out all around us. an israeli company has actually -- the picture over in the far corner -- actually now has, and i guess it's being certified all across europe right now, a desk top blood test that actually does a whole plethora of
different blood tests with just a few drops. remember, we talked about this 10 years ago. turns out the technology actually exists. in a couple blog posts, even the concept of going into an autonomous health care center where you -- and we have about 10 of these in the phoenix area. you go and sign in an ipad. take a picture of your driver's license and insurance card. you put your arm into this thing. it does your blood pressure, does a number of readings. an of a tar on the screen -- avatar on the screen says, can you do it. can you bend it? it does algogh rhythmic health care. -- algorhythmic health care. putting your hand on something, pricks your finger, takes the blood test right there and after you walk out it's giving you a full blood workup. what did you use, using
technology to disrupts parts of health care costs? these things are real, rolling out right now. there are amazing technologies in almost everything you can think of. but we have to think about both the ecosystem, the complications of how it's paid for, are these things medicare, medicaid, other insurers will pay for and how we do it, also the data. what happens in a society where you're now going to be walking around with southern wearable -- certain wearables? you have the fancy watch that manages your hypertension, the port that actually manages your blood sugar, lots of data coming off these wearables. in our office we call them digitalceuticals. how does it -- how do you get that data so a doctor or the algorithm can say, hey, when you
open your pill bottle, because the pill bottle has a sensor in it, we know when you took your pill, 15 minutes later we see this on your e.k.g. that's coming from your watch, we see this reaction, can that data become incredibly usable? can that data be blinded from your own personal information and help all of society? all of society get healthier get -- because we obtained the data in those algorithm. it's cutting edge but it's not etaupiaism. we have these things right now today. you start to think about this -- you can actually go to amazon or i'm sure other online, it exists today for under a couple ousand dollars a hand-held ultrasound. think about that. and apparently there's other versions and faster, better, even ones coming in the future where the algorithm will actually read the ultrasound.
you use this hand-held ultrasound, the algorithm will also help you interpret it. what does an ultrasound system cost a few years ago? you can buy this online today. it exists. and we're doing experiments with it right now in a v.a., i believe, just right here in maryland, and apparently they're having terrific outcomes because the doctor can walk up and check something. these technologies exist. how do we start to have these technologies start to disrupt the price of health care? because to be absolutely intellectually honest, if you actually look at the a.c.a., obamacare, republican alternatives, we have spent a couple decades in this body , notg a debate on who pays how to disrupt. the a.c.a., we will have
government pay a lot more. over here in our version, we will try to create incentives to have individuals pay -- actually get more market competition, there have been debates on paying. we almost never stepped up and said, what are the barriers at our state level? what are our barriers at the regulatory level? what are our barriers at the h.h.s. levels? that actually prevent the adoption of disruptive technologies? because these things do exist today. we need to actually embrace the concept of rapid, disruptive adoption of these technologies. because remember our five pillars. if we do not have a disruption in the cost of health care, as we're getting older very quickly as a society -- remember, in only nine years, we have two workers for every one person in retirement. in nine years, if you pull interest out, half the spending
here coming out of washington, d.c., half of it will be to those 65 and older. and it's substantially health care. so think of this. as we start to talk about our ability to -- we all carry around these smartphones. should our health records be on those? of course they should because they should be portable with us because health data, health records are going to become something dramatically different than the record that's sitting there at the hospital. it's going to be living. how many of you ever use something like waze or crowdsource on your phone? you're going to be having these things on your body, or the pill bottle that knows when you opened it, that data should be living with you so you are constantly managing because there's a debate on those folks that build these algorithms. the fact you had a surgery seven years ago that's sitting on your health record or the health data
that's come off your wearables from the last 48 hours, which one is actually more valuable to your health care? the living data has incredible value in keeping you healthy. we need to find a way to embrace this and build this ecosystem. and this next one i put up, even though there is a dozen -- we will show a couple versions of this just for the fun of it. think about the debates we're having here in washington, d.c., and for those in the ways and means committee we're having in regards to drug pricing. we need to fix many of the incentives. we need to actually deal with the fact that some of the ways -- some of the games are played on patents and other things. ok. that's an honest debate. but understand, the data says, half the pharmaceuticals that will be picked up at pharmacies today or delivered in the mail today, half of them will either not be used or will not be used properly. think about that just
conceptually. half the pharmaceuticals that will be taken home today aren't going to be used properly. is there a data solution? so we have everything from just the pill bottle top that lets us know that you opened it and when it opened and would tag your health care record, hopefully portable with you on your phone so we know you actually took it, to actually now, for those who may be on the severely mentally ill side that have certain maintenance medications that are providing miracles that they actually have super, super, small tiny chip that's in the pill itself that we can actually read that we know you're digesting it, we know you took your meds, think about it. we need to embrace these types of technologies even down to this type of pill dispensor, for someone that has a little complicated issue, where they take it at multiple times during the day or they have
complications. here's one shown at the computer -- what is it? the consumer electronics show in las vegas about six weeks ago. you put your cup under it and it automatically dispenses at a certain time and tells what pharmaceuticals were delivered to you. it's technology dealing with the fact that we've documented that half the pharmaceuticals aren't properly used or used at all. and turns out the data that will flow off of these things actually will help us say, when you have a wisdom tooth taken out, do you really need 30 pills or need three? turns out the data from this may actually help us dramatically change the way we do prescriptions in the first place. so making the argument -- turns out data and technology is also one of the solutions as we talk about pharmaceutical pricing. now we're actually going to move on to something else we as a body -- and this is going to
take my brothers and sisters on the democrats' side, republicans' side, we need to have a very, hopefully math-based, honest conversation on how we're going to finance the miracles that are coming and some of them are going to be here before the end of this year. we just put up this slide as part of the thought experiment. in america we have about 8,000 americans that have heemo feel -- hemophelia a. the blood clotting factors may be half a million dollars a year to keep that american stable. what happens this november or december which we're very hopeful that will about to appen, a single shot cures hemophilia a. how do we pay for it? what are we willing to pay for it? how do you value that in society? it's a single shot of a very
small population so it's not like the next day there's going to be a competitor drug in the pipeline like we had with hepc. in this case it's a -- pep c. in this case it's a -- over 50% of all of our health care expense is to 5% of our brothers and sisters who have chronic conditions. what happens when we have a miracle drug like this that's curing diseases that are part of our brothers and sisters that ve, that 5%, that have the chronic condition that consumes over half of our health care dollars? we are proposing ideas of a type of health care bond so you can actually finance the adoption and distribution of these disruptive revolutionary drugs and then pay for it using some of what would have been the future costs, pull those forward so you get the disruption of the future savings, these individuals are out of that
chronic condition. but we're going to have a very tricky conversation. how do you price it? what is the value of a pharmaceutical that is a functionually a miracle that cures something like hemophilia a, how do you price it? there would be one producer of it, my guess, because it's a small population. there are only 8,000 americans a.h hemophilia there is a math way to get there dealing with the reality, this is a population that costs quarter a million dollars a year to keep them healthy and this is the life expectancy, what was the research cost, because we want these miracle drugs as part of our society to help us have that disruption as part of the wholeistic theory of -- holistic theory of technology, these new miracle drugs coming to disrupt
the future of health care costs. now, i want you to take this concept of it further and spread it beyond health care. think of some of the crazy debates we've actually had here on the floor in regards to -- forgive me -- environment. i want to argue with you that there's a technology disruption that can make our environment cleaner, but we don't actually hurt the economy. we can actually help it grow. so here's my first thought experiment. this has been a fixation of mine for a few years here. think of the community you live in. what if tomorrow instead of today's current model, instead of you want to open up a paint shop or you want to open up a bakery or this and that, you go out and fill out forms, you send them down to your local environmental regulator, file with the state, if you're doing certain times of -- you may have to file with the e.p.a. you're basically filling out file cabinets. do it make the air environment,
the quality of your community cleaner? i mean, it's an honest concept. because we think functually have a 1938 model of fill out more papers, do audits, file up cabinets full of paper that functually a lawyer gets to come and look at a couple years later, does that make the environment in your community cleaner? what would happen if you had a few hundred, a few thousand people traveling around in your community that actually just had the little sensor traveling with them that they were collecting data on hydrocarbons, on andtile organics, on ozone, all of a sudden you have a hot spot over here because you find out you have clowns painting cars in the back yards of their house, would you know about it instantly and the environmental regulator, instead of putting paper in fire cabinets, they
get, in hopefully their electric vehicle, go over and stop the clowns from painting cars in their backyard. which made the environment cleaner? the tradeoff here is actually very elegant because i don't need you to file lots of paperwork. i don't need you to actually be doing quarterlies and annuallies because if you screw up we catch you instantly. what made the economy grow? what reduced the bureaucratic burden in our society, and what made our communities healthier and cleaner? it's just technology? >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. schweikert: for you, yes. >> with all due respect to the gentleman from arizona, he's very weird, in that he runs his congressional office like a think tank, where people contemplate the ways that technology can improve health care and the environment in a nonpartisan way because these are not issues that have
anything to do with whether someone is a republican or a democrat but so many of these ideas that the gentleman and i have discussed for years fail to make their way into a -- the most dynamic economy and marketplace in the world which is the united states of america. . my question is how do we go from the invow native space of great americans coming up with censor technology to action in the congress or within our government that is worthy of the great people we serve? i yield back. mr. schweikert: would the gentleman be willing to enter into a colloquy? mr. gathes: i would. mr. schweikert: you're one of my buddies from florida. you actually get this. you also know i love the technology disruptions because none of us have figured out if it's republican or democrat yet, which makes it possible for us to do it. eventually we'll break it into partisan because everything has become weaponized. right now, think of this, this is a natural gas electric
facility. it can can power 5,000 homes. it is up and running outside houston. t doesn't have a smokestack. all the carbon is captured. they came up this brilliant technology that the carbon actually flows through, my understanding of the engineering, it helps spin the turbines and the excess carbon is saved and sold. we actually have a tax credit that was -- we adjusted, hopefully made it moreau bust as we did tax reform, that if you want to take some of that carbon and put it in concrete or piece of plastic or certain types of oil recovery -- mr. gathes: was it a refundable tax credit? mr. schweikert: it's a tax credit according to the amount of tonnage. mr. gathes: production. mr. schweikert: the beauty is that model has said we have
actually already create add value of this carbon and if you don't put it into the environment but use it for other things as a filler and plastics, in concrete, putting it back in the ground to enhance recovery, we're already doing it. this technology isn't utopianism, it exists. it's already running. it's already -- how many times around here we talked about he we could actually have a hydrocarbon generation without a smokestack? the technology exists. if we're going to talk about a green agenda, we need to sit down and meet with the really smart researchers and scientists and understand the math and science that scientists -- science is way ahead 6 where our heads are. -- of where our heads are. you have some amazing technologies out of your state from biogeneration to waste to manage the environment. mr. gathes: i would ask the
ntleman -- mr. gathes -- mr. gaetz: as we take this from several states and local communities doing some of their own great work, i feel at times like you got one party here that thinks that big government's always the answer. you got another party that thinks big business is the answer. as times these technology -- technological solutions come from neither. they come from the creative class, innovative class. mr. schweikert: my continuing thought experiment -- this is a little beyond where we were oing but it makes the point. visit washington, d.c., or other locations now that are not going to give you a straw. they are going to give you a paper straw. the math is, this i believe comes from the united nations, 90% of all the plastic in the cean -- it's a big deal.
i'm looking at my data here, roughly eight million tons a year plastic goes into the ocean. you're from a coastal state. comes from 10 rivers, eight in asia, two in africa. if you actually really cared about plastic in the ocean that eight million tons, we would actually take our environmental policy, our trade policy, our foreign aid policy and say we're going to actually help these 10 rivers that are responsible for 90% of the plastic in the ocean and work on those. but instead we do these feel good absurd theatrical things of my community isn't going to do straws, don't we feel bert we did something for plastic in the ocean? it had nothing to do with plastic in the ocean, it's these 10 rivers. let's stop the political theater. mr. gaetz: what is the get out of jail free card so we can liberate ourselves from a policymaking climate that seems
to be moreau bust and virtual signaling than following data? mr. schweikert: i knew you would say that. it's more sarcastic and mine it to be more slightly humorous. one of the first things every member of congress should put into their budgets is the ownership of a calculator. we functionally work in a math-free zone where our feelings become public policy. the baseline data where we can have an impact making our society and the world healthier, more economically prosperous, and if you were actually genuinely cared about plastic in the ocean. we got 10 rivers, 90% of the plastic, we know exactly where they are, focus there instead of the absurdity of the straw at your local whatever. mr. gaetz: i appreciate the gentleman mentioning our oceans. as someone from a coastal state that means a great deal to me. mr. schweikert: coming from arizona we have this utopian view that one day they may
become a coastal state. mr. gaetz: based on the current climate change. you may get your wish. i do thank the gentleman again for yielding some of his time for this discussion. it is my sincere hope that this is a discussion that we can have with members of congress from urban districts, rural districts, liberal members, conservative members because as the gentleman correctly points out, these are solutions that do not lend themselves to a partisan tilt. i'm sincerely hopeful that the gentleman will continue to lead on the subject. i yield back. i thank the gentleman. mr. schweikert: you are very kind. thank you for the colloquy. many of us just want to solve the problems. i have the best little girl in the world sitting in the back right now. she's 3 years old. that's my little girl. what is her future? hi, olivia? what does her future get to be like? we have a demographic crisis. it's just math. we're getting older very quickly. if we don't grow the economy, if we don't have lots of labor force participation, if we
don't use trade and tax policy and innovation, these things, to grow, but instead we -- if you listen to the speeches often end up behind these microphones, it's absurdity that's partisan because we cared about power more than actually doing those things. they are so important to our future and society. i want to give you one last -- this is more the ultimate thought experiment. and i still just stunned this article hasn't gotten more coverage around the country. but it's going to require many of us to actually deal with some of our political constituencies that have lots of folklore built into their belief systems. about six weeks ago an article came out, university of illinois, u.s. agricultural research service published a paper saying -- you-all remember your high school or your first botany class or when you are learning about cell biology, there is a weird
inefficiency in plant cells on how they grab a carbon molecule or oxygen molecule. we won't geek out too much. but they found a way through a bit of genetic engineering to make the cell wall superefficient. they basically believe that they have broken the holy grail that plants, commodity crops, they did it on tobacco plants because they do research on tobacco plants is we have known the genome of tobacco plants for quite a while now o. 40% increase in efficiency. we got to think this through. there is a really disruptive side of that. 40% if tomorrow you could plant a corn seed or wheat or something else, and it had 40% more yield, what does that mean to feeding the world 50 years from now? yea. what does that mean to commodity prices? scary. you need functionally now 40%
less land, 40% less water, 40% less fuel. and we actually have some data here from the ipcc, 2014 report, which is from the united nations, that just little under a quarter of all the -- i'll get it right. human admission, functionally greenhouse gas, come from agriculture. so if you do the math, think about this, if you do the math, -- 40% i crease in yield increase in yield for agriculture would functionally equal removing every car off the face of the earth. think about the conversations we have here talking about the environment. here's a miracle and the reality we know from other disruptions in seeds that it can be rolled into society very quickly as these new seed stocks. except we'll have to deal with our brothers and sisters say
well, that's a genetically modified seed, yes, but it has this amazing disruption in the world if you truly care about greenhouse gaffes -- gas f. that's your fixation -- gases, if that's your fixation, moving to this new disruptive technology that i hope is real, i hope the research continues to demonstrate a 40% production ncrease, this could be the fastest, biggest disruption in greenhouse gases in the world because could you actually adopt these seed crops within just a few years. that's an ampler example of technology not just bringing -- example of technology not just bringing a small improvement or even disruption in many ways. it is a major disruption. but you have to deal with the politics of belief systems. well, but it's a genetically modified, but it's not genetically modified seed stock to deal with this and that.
they dealt with the inefficientcy of how the cell wall -- it's a miracle. if it's true it's a miracle. think about it. but understand the disruption that is are going to roll through our society. what happens to the value of agricultural land? what happens to the ability of nations to ultimately feed themselves if they had a 40% increase in productivity? what happens in our world when if i come to you right now and say, agriculture produces functionally, my math is a bit more than 2 1/2 times the amount of emissions, of every car on the earth. so this technology would be as if you just removed every car off the earth. how come we don't have these types of conversations here on the floor? it's because it doesn't fit our -- ical folklore model of what has become just a
stunningly partisan, gotsche you weaponized body. as we go through our five pillars for the future, one more time, the reason the fixation on this, we have 74 million of our brothers and sisters that are baby boomers. the last baby boomer hits 65 in nine years. many of the things we should have done, we should have done a decade or two decades ago and didn't have the political appetite. we have to deal with the reality, we have this population bubble that's getting older, and our birth rates have substantially collapsed. if we're going to keep our promises to those folks who have worked their entire lives who will be moving into their benefit years, we have to think disruptively. we have to be willing to do everything from tax policy, trade policy, regulatory policy. we have talked about here using
technology to labor force participation, encouraging people all up and down the spectrum to actually enter the labor force. we have to be willing to talk about redesigning some of the programs to incentivize, if you wish to work you get to work. we're going to have to actually also embrace the miracle of these disruptive technologies and not be scared of them. this body is going to also have to deal with something that's very difficult for political body and that is a lot of our friends are going to either have to change their economic models, a lot of our states are going to have to change their regulatory models just as we will. but it's these disruptions that give us the economic robustness to actually keep our promises over the next 30 years. madam speaker, with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields.
under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2019, gentlewoman from michigan, ms. talib, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. . ms. talib: thank you. thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and to heir remarks include material on the subject of this special order today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. talib: thank you. i'm so honored to co-chair the special order for the congressional progressive caucus with my amazing colleague from california, katie porter. it's really a privilege for me to be able to work with my colleagues on issues they are passionate about, from health care to environmental justice to lgbtq rights, it's really been an honor to lead this and to be part of this. but today we're talking about the important -- important issue
to one of my colleagues that i've known for over 15 years as a community organizer, later as an immigration rights attorney, working on civil rights issues, it's really an honor to introdeuce and to yield my time -- introduce and to yield my time to my colleague from the state of washington, the leader on health care for all, our wonderful, great colleague, pramila jayapal. ms. jayapal: thank you, representative talib. i want to say how pleased i am leading this special order hour and, madam speaker, this is a fantastic group of individuals who've joined us here in congress. i couldn't be more proud to serve with both of you. and with others who are here as well. and the topic of this special order hour is so important. it's been important to me, of
course, but to members of congress in general and to the community across the country and that is the topic of health care. and i wanted to just break this down a little bit in terms of where we are on this issue for people who are watching because this is one of the beauties of the special order hour. we get to talk about the issues that matter. we get to explain things. we get to put forward our proposals and our ideas. and i'm so proud to say on february 27, i and my colleague, representative debbie dingell, introduced the medicare for all ct of 2019, and we had 107 original co-sponsors. those are the folks that sign on right as it's getting introduced. of course, a bill gets introduced and we always add people on after that, but this is 107 original co-sponsors for this act that would build upon improve and expand medicare so that it covers every single person in this country.
universal health care. the idea that health care is a right and not a privilege. let me start by saying we democrats are absolutely united around the need to shore up the affordable care act. there's no question that there's work to do immediate a lot on making sure that some of the things that were done to take away access to those with pre-existing conditions, to strip away the benefits of the affordable care act, we are 100% united around continuing to do that. however, we have to have a bold vision that addresses the health care crisis in this country that leaves 30 million people uninsured and 40 million people underinsured, without access to health care. and we have to understand in doing that that in the united states today, we spend about -- depending what estimate you look at -- about $32 trillion to $39 trillion on health care costs
over 10 years. that is going up to about $50 trillion over the next 10 years on health care. that's about 18.5% of g.d.p. and if you look at every other major industrialized country in the world, what you see is that they provide health care, comprehensive care to everybody in their country, and they do it at about half of the cost or less of what the united states spend. now, you might think that you could look at costs in this country of health care and you could say, well, america has the best health care system in the world. that's why we spend so much. we have the best health care outcomes. well, let's talk about that for a second. in the united states, we spend 18.5% of our g.d.p. on health care costs, and yet, we have the worst health outcomes of any peer country in the world. so today in the united states, we have the highest maternal
mortality rate, right? we know what that is, that's moms dying in childbirth. we have the highest infant mortality rate. that's kids dying at young ages. and we have the lowest life expectency rate of any of our peer countries. in fact, we're the only country in the world, industrialized country in the world where life expectency is going down and not up. so we don't even have good health outcomes to show for our health care system. and that is why representative dingell and i and our 105 additional co-sponsors of the bill and representative talib and many others are part of this effort have introduced the improved medicare for all act of 2019. what this bill does is it offers, first of all, comprehensive coverage to everyone in the country and we say that that includes primary care. it includes vision, dental, hearing. it includes mental health and substance abuse. it includes long-term services
and supports maternal health care and more. everybody in the country will have access to health care when you get sick. not when you need an emergency room, not when you simply can't take your illness anymore, but when you actually get sick. and this bill is the first time that we will actually have long-term care, supports and services included in this coverage, and this is very, very important because it covers seniors, obviously our elderly, as they get towards the end of their life, and it includes people with disabilities who have really traditionally been left out of this entire sphere. what we do is we say that instead of the current system where you have to get so poor that you have to be on medicaid, you have to have a low level of income to be on medicaid if you want long-term supports and services, and the automatic default is institutional care instead of home care. we flip that on its head and we say, you get to stay at home with the people that you love. you get to be in your home as
you are dealing with these incredible challenges that you may have. our bill says, no premiums, co-pays and deductibles. we don't want you to have to think about that as you go to the doctor. and this is very important because you will hear this is a government takeover of health care. that's what opponents of my bill are already trying to tell you. i want you to hear this really clearly if you're listening. that is that we use the same network of doctors and hospitals that is already here. in fact, i bet if we had a room full here and i were to ask people, how many of you have been told or have a family member or relative that's been told you can't go to a certain hospital or doctor because it's out of network or you only get a certain coverage if you go, i bet everybody would raise their hands. so what our plan says, you can go -- i see people raising their hands right now. good for you. i feel like i have an audience here. so what our plan says, you can go to any doctor or hospital, the government is not taking
over those services. it's not going to be a different government service. it's just the same as what you have right now. the only thing that changes is, instead of having to argue with five insurance companies, because maybe you have medicare and medicare advantage, maybe you don't have anything at all, maybe you have a combination of things put together, instead of having to argue with five insurance companies, you teally get to say, this is a -- you actually get to say, this is a government insurance program. that is covered by one insurance program. a single payer, if you heard that statement, that's what that means. this is the way that almost every industrialized country in the world does it. and, you know, i think that we have to think about what is the problem here, why have we not been able to do this. we have increasingly seen our health care system, unfortunately, being moved more and more to a for-profit system that puts those profits over patients. and so if you look at, for example, the cost of
pharmaceutical drugs in our country today, it is so much more expensive to get insulin treatment or cancer treatments or even an m.r.i. in the united states. and i have patients, clients and constituents who drive to canada, who go to other places because they can't afford the drugs here and they can buy the exact same thing across the border for significantly cheaper. we are having a crisis, madam speaker, where people are thinking, going to bed at night thinking how they are going to pay their rent and pay for their cancer treatment, how they're going to afford to get the insulin treatments that they want. people are foreclosing on homes. in fact, 2/3 of all the bankruptcies today in the united states are due to medical issues, medical costs, and go fund me has become one of the most popular insurance plans around where people are just begging on the goodness of people to take care of their health care costs. that is simply not acceptable.
and if we want to take on this question of universal health care coverage, which by the way teddy roosevelt talked about in 1910, harry truman in 1945, president johnson, this is not a radical idea. it's actually something that's been tried and tested but here in the united states, the idea we could provide universal health care for everybody, make sure that people get the health care access that they need, this is the time for it, and 70% of the american people actually agree with us. now, you might hear that that support goes down if you say some other things, but let's just be really clear that the fear mongering out there is driven by for-profit industries that unfortunately have a lot to lose if a plan like this were to pass because we would actually make sure that we're covering, not only providing universal coverage but that we also have cost containment built into our system and that is what my bill does is we build in cost
containment measures so that we can actually bring down the overall cost of health care in this country to what is standard in other countries around the world. and so this is incredibly important to us. as we think about who gains and who loses in this, i believe that it's actually a win-win for everybody who is concerned about putting patients over profit. it is a win-win for doctors who have been trained to take care of patients but instead spend 25% to 30% of their time dealing with insurance companies and trying to do all the paperwork that needs to be there, trying to argue for a client -- for a patient of theirs, to be able to get the care they need. it is a win for hospitals who want to make sure that they know what kind of budgets they're going to have and they can work within that. we have something built in to our plan called global budgeting, which is actually the standard in other countries but
is being tested in maryland to great effect where hospitals get an overall amount of money and they get a global budget and so we have that built in as well. it is a win for patients, and this is the thing that is just so important to emphasize again and again. actually before i get to the patients, let me say it's also a win for our businesses, and particularly our small and medium-sized businesses. i have a lot of business owners who might disagree with me on a few other issues, but they come up to me, many of them are across the aisle, they're republicans, they're independents and they come up to me and say, representative, i don't agree with you on this or this or this, but please can you get the medicare for all bill passed, because we cannot as small businesses and even medium-sized businesses and by the way, even large-sized businesses, we can't deal with the growing cost of these insurance premiums that we're paying that are really just going to line the pocket of top c.e.o.'s? the c.e.o. of united health took home $82 million.
even as people are not able to afford treatments and are dying. the other c.e.o.'s have taken in $52 million, $29 million. we just have to make sure that the balance of something like health care, which is an essential -- i believe a common good in this country, that we are able to provide that to people, and there are lots of other places where markets can work. but in this marketplace where you need to make sure that health care is provided to everybody, regardless of whether you're rich or poor, regardless of where you live, regardless of the color of your skin, this is where the government comes in to try to help make sure that is actually possible. and so this is a really important bill for us. i'm absolutely honored to have so many of my colleagues who are so smart on these issues, not only in liberal districts like mine, but also in front line districts, places that were held by republicans for a very long
time, my democratic colleagues have flipped those districts and they ran on this issue. they ran on this issue and they won on this issue because they know and their constituents know that it is time to take profit out of this system and make sure that it once again gets focused on the health care of people. we also have an incredible coalition of labor unions that have come on board for the first time ever. our teachers are on board. our machinists. our steelworkers. we have so many different unions that are on board this time. our disability rights community is on board. our women's organizations are on board because for the first time we make sure that everybody gets the care they need, whether they are a woman or a man, and we make sure that people have control over their reproductive choices. so we are absolutely thrilled about this, and i want to be clear about one thing as i turn this back over to my incredible colleague from michigan. this is not a manying bill.
i want to be clear about that. for -- this is not a messaging bill. i want to be clear about that. this bill is over 124 pages long. it's a detailed analysis and layout of exactly how this would work. it ensures that everybody gets health care. it keeps the existing system of delivery that we have. we're not changing the system of delivery, and it does not in any way say that insurance companies can't continue to operate. they just can't provide the same benefits that we are providing through the government insurance plan. that's actually the way medicare works right now. you can't provide the same benefits because we don't want a two-tier system. now, if they want to provide benefits outside what we provide, they are welcome to do so. that's how medicare advantage came into being medicare advantage plans, the benefits offered under those would be included in our plan so we wouldn't need those plans but insurance companies are free to continue to innovate as they need to and we've built in a 1%
of the cost of the bill for the first five years actually goes to a fund that ensures transition and appropriate support for workers in the insurance industries who may actually end up having to be -- to lose their jobs or to eventually transition into this new system that we have. . we will for first time, thanks to speaker pelosi's support and others' support, we will have hearings on this bill. and whether you agree or you disagree with the premise, what i would ask is that you understand how critical it is to address and finally get to universal health care in country. this is a debate -- in this country. this is a debate that should have been had on the house floor and in our committees a long time ago. we're finally going to have that, with a number of different committees. and i am looking forward to continuing to help lead with all of my colleagues on ensuring that health care is a right and not a privilege. that you don't have to be wealthy to get basic health care, and that we improve the
ultimate competitiveness of our businesses, our families, our communities and the health, the basic health, the right to live with dignity and respect, for all of our people. thank you very much. and i yield back to the gentlelady from michigan. ms. tlaib: thank you so much. that was incredible and obviously many of us in the congressional progressive caucus have fully supported so much of what medicare for all stands for. so thank you so much again for the leadership of my colleague from the great state of washington, and for congresswoman jayapal's leadership and courage for taking on such a bold movement. i'm very honored to be here and representing the community that raised me. i was raised in southwest detroit in the 13th congressional district. growing up in southwest detroit, i actually thought that smell was normal. all the pollution that i kind of grew up with, the truck traffic,
as i got older i realized it wasn't normal. it wasn't normal that so many of my neighbors were getting cancer or had respiratory issues. it wasn't normal that one of five children have asthma. and we have one of the highest -- one of the worst air qualities in the state of michigan in the 13th congressional district. and it's the third poorest congressional district in the country. so the deadly consequences of being uninsured is real for my constituents at home. for no fault -- through no fault of their own, but for the fact that they live in communities that are polluted and communities that lack so much opportunity to be able to thrive . and so this is an important issue not only to the millions of americans today, but to my residents. this need for a universal -- for universal health care. it's a topic that most, if not all of us, in this chamber were sent here to work on. it is a topic that's always on the minds of our residents every single day. it's a topic that is literally life or death situations and an
issue that has bankrupt many of our families. an issue that we should not be worried about in this country. we are the richest country on the planet. but the united states is the only industrialized country without universal health care. 50,000 residents in my district are uninsured. this is why i'm thrilled and excited that over 100 of my colleagues have signed on to sponsor medicare for all act. more than 30 million americans are without access to health care right now. without insurance. with an additional 40 million who cannot afford co-pays and the deductible. pharmaceutical companies make billions, madam speaker, in profits while working americans are forced to go through extraordinary measures to pay for care. just the other day i heard a mother talk about losing her 6-year-old child, her little girl, because she couldn't afford insulin. this is why we need something bold, courageous, transformational. and that is supporting medicare for all. we spend the highest amount of
per capita in the world on health care. we need a better system for our constituents. we need medicare for all. this system is one that many more of my colleagues should get behind. it provides a system where our constituents will know that they are secure in getting health care that they need today. this is a system that will take away the worry of our constituents who have constant day in and day out thinking about the cost of health care and whether their current insurance even covers it. it's really important to be clear about medicare for all. one, it includes comprehensive coverage for primary care, for hospital, outpatient services, prescription drugs, reproductive alth services, newborn care, long-term services, long-term care services. this is so critical for my residents. constantly do i hear day of families that are taking care of -- hear of families that are taking care of their parents. and it supports mental health
and substance abuse treatment -- treatment. laboratory and diagnostic services and so much more. patients will have complete freedom to choose their doctors. i'm going say this again. patients will have complete freedom under the medicare for all act to choose their doctors, hospitals, and other providers that they wish to see. long-term care, again, and support for our older american, our neighbors, and those with disabilities, will be covered. medicare for all will decrease the costs by reducing inefficiency, preventing health care corporations from overcharging and increasing transparency in our system. medicare for all will also decrease prescription drug costs, by allowing medicare to finally negotiate our prices. the legislation also preserves health care programs for our veterans and our native americans. health care is a right, madam speaker, not a privilege for the wealthy. and not only is this the most
incredible class, and not because i'm part of it, but it really, is it's the largest incoming class -- really is, it's the largest incoming class since watergate, but more importantly, it's more diverse. we ran not only because we wanted to be first or diverse, we ran because we speak differently. we serve differently. and we're much more courageous than, i think, previous classes ever have been. and so i'm asking our colleagues to please stand up and support medicare for all. give it a chance to look at the possibility of finally being able to provide for our constituents' universal health care. and with that, madam speaker, thank you so much, and i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for the remainder of the hour, as the
designee of the majority leader. mr. green: thank you, madam speaker. adam speaker, and still i rise because i love my country. nd i rise tonight on the republican side of what we call the aisle. madam speaker, because the issue that i will call to the attention of this august body is t an issue that i consider a republican issue, i don't consider it a democratic issue. i consider this an issue for the , past, present,
and future. this is an issue that has plagued our country almost since its inception. it's an issue that we have , ided with intentionality , ided because of discomfort avoided through the years. but it's an issue that we have to address. so i rise tonight, madam speaker, with love of country and heart on the republican side of the aisle. and i rise to announce, as i have before, that we have to take up the question of impeachment. i rise, madam speaker, to say this and to give some explanations. there are many things that are being misunderstood.
i trust that i can bring some egree of clarity to the issues that are misunderstood. and i know, madam speaker, as i rise, and understand that this will come to a vote in this a se, i know that it will be tough vote for many people. i understand. it will be a tough vote. for multiplicity of reasons. be a tough vote. i know what tough votes are like. so i understand. , ave people in my community one example, members of the clergy, that i've had to explain some very tough votes to. i have some that have to this day not agreed with the tough
votes that i've had to take. -- toughes i came here votes, i came here to take tough votes. i came here to deal with tough issues. the difficult. i came to do what i believe should have been done long before now, but the opportunity to do it has presented itself since i arrived in congress. so i take on this challenge and i understand that this will be a tough vote. and before i get to some of the nuances of the explanation that i'd like to give, let me just tell you who i'll be voting for when i take this tough vote. i'll be voting for the slave mother who had her baby ripped out of her arms.
aken to the auction block. this is why i can relate to those mothers on the border who have had their babies ripped out of their arms. and still many have not been returned to their mothers. their fathers. i can relate because i understand the historical context. i'll be voting for them. tough vote. but i'll be voting for the slave father who never got to see his child because the mother and the auctioned taken away, off, sent to some distant plantation, never allowed the opportunity to enjoy the love that a father ought to with a
child. that's a historical context of why i will be voting and what i'll be voting for. i will also be voting for the was of mother who african ancestry, who had to say, yes, ma'am, and yes, sir, of he 3-year-old children the master. at that time it would have been called the boss. but it was the master. had to say yes, ma'am, and yes, sir, to the children. to the father, i will vote for the father who was called boy, demeaned in the presence of his son. i know, i saw that happen to my
father. i know about that elderly mother . i saw it happen to her. the elderly black mother. .'ll be voting for them they have come through the years to get me here. i won't forgot them. i'll be voting for the lgbtq for showingas fired i married and saying, the love of my life who happens to be the same-sex as that person was -- same sex as that person was. i'm an ally of the lgbtq community. i'm going to vote for those persons who have been discriminated against. who e voting for those
in the tree of life synagogue, lost their lives o bigotry, hate. i'll be voting for those who st their lives at the church in charlotte. . i will be voting for the woman who was a peaceful protester, who lost her life in charlottesville among the igots, the k.k.k., the neo-nazis, the sdemreenofobes, phobes. and here's why i will be voting
for them. these articles of impeachment will be emanating from the presidency, in policy, i might add. bigotry in policy. there is clear and convincing evidence that we have bigotry in policy. i will be voting for the people who are the victims, and i would , y to those who would tell me is is not something that the congress ought to entertain. here's what i would say. i would say, if the congress of the united states of america impeach president ill w johnson for speaking can gress, this congress
impeach for bigotry in policy. it's just a question of whether 218 people, assuming all are present, will vote for it. that's what it is. it's just a question of whether we have the will to do it. the way is before us. article 2, section 4, all of the noted constitutional scholars, maybe there are some exception. there's probably one someplace. but they have concluded that article 2, section 4 not only allows a president to be impeached for criminalality, a president can be impeached for misdeeds. as a matter of fact, those who desire to he hadify themselves, can read -- edify themselves, can real federalist 65, read hamilton and madison and read their words.
let them communicate with you through the vista of time. you will find when you read their writings that they were prophetic in their words, that they understood that there would be a time such as this, and they have given us the recipe for this time and the means by which we can take corrective action. when you read you will find they indicate, without question, they impeachment is not something that will be done without some degree of turmoil, that impeachment will be something that will sometimes be along party lines. party lines occur when impeachment is brought before this august body.
and by the way, i brought impeachment twice before, so i am talking about something that has occurred and something that will occur again. so impeachment is something that was anticipated. it is something that is a remedy that is constitutional, and i plan to bring that remedy before this body so that we may take a stand. you know, dr. king was a great man and somebody i admire and i talk about him quite regularly. dr. king reminded us that the truest measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience but where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy, when you have hard votes to take, where do you stand? i don't believe bigotry should
be a talking point. something that we use to get the base out at election time. we go out and we talk about oh, how bad certain people are, and we announce that they are racist, that they are bigots. i don't think it ought to be a talking point. i think it should be an action item. i am bringing the vote because it's going to be an action item for congress at last. again, it will be an action item, not just a talking point. i am going to put the moral imperative to vote for all of these people that i call to your attention and countless others above political expediency. political expediency allows us to push this issue to the next generation. political expediency has allowed us to reach this point in our history where bigotry is rearing its ugly head. no longer covert, but it's now
overt. we've reached this point in our history. so i refuse to accept political expediency as a remedy. why not wait? let's defeat at the polls as opposed to impeach here in the house. i don't buy into that. now, there are many who would say, let's wait on the mueller report. the mueller report has nothing to do with bigotry. most likely has to do with criminalality associated with obstruction of -- criminality associated with obstruction of justice, probably has something to do with emoluments, probably something to do with collusion, which is a lay person's way of saying conspiracy. could have something to do with all of these, but won't, i assure each and every person who voice,in the sound of my
by whatever means, it will have nothing to do with bigotry. so there's no need to wait for the mueller report, because the mueller report won't address piggottry. those who would rather -- address bigotry. those who would rather impeach for some other thing, then wait for the mueller report. by the way, i don't plan to get in the way of the mueller report, but i will say this. the framers of the constitution never intended for the executive branch to investigate itself, and that's what's going on. the framers of the constitution understood the implications of having the executive branch investigate itself. one implication we see now is that the mueller report may not be presented to congress. it's going to the president before it gets to congress. never intended for the executive to investigate itself. that's the responsibility of congress.
that's why i brought articles of impeachment -- pardon me for using a personal pronoun. my mother taught me better. that's why i brought articles of impeachment in a previous congress when we had republicans in charge. i am not going to be hypocritical and conclude now that democrats are in charge we don't have the same duty, responsibility, and obligation. i'm not that kind of me. we're going to go on record. it will be a hard vote, but we are going to go on record. some would say, well, how do you bigotry? oof of the easy answer. appears to be a tough question. easy answer. the same way we got the proof that we brought to the floor of the house for colleagues who had resolutions that were to condemn for bigotist statements.
same way. we get them from news sources, and we have plenty of evidence o show us by plenty of evidence. ask -- and go out, by the way, where people of color might reside, i might add, and you go and develop an immigration policy that adversely impacts those people of color, changing the law to adversely impact their them. bigotry in policy. ha. i talked about the babies at the border. people of color, i might add, separating them. we didn't do that at ellis
island. we didn't do that when 12 million people came from europe, scandinavia. we didn't do that. we didn't separate them from their children. we didn't have a flotilla out there to stop them. we didn't try to build walls to keep them out. they came and the people who are at the border, by the way, are exercising their rights under the laws that we promulgated, that we, the united states of america, put the law in place that says they can come up and ask for asylum. and by the way, i do not contend all who seek asylum should be granted asylum. i do think that the process, the law that we put in place ought to be honored. and if we don't like the law, then we should change the law. there's plenty of opportunity to do so. there has been plenty of opportunity to do so. change the law if you don't like the way we have decided to deal with these issues.
accommodated persons who were trying to flee harm's way, bringing their children with them. when those persons were fleeing castro's cuba and traversed the shark-infested waters of the gulf of mexico -- i say shark-infested because there are so many people saying, well, we don't want them to do this because they can be harmed along the way. we didn't say that about the people who were traversing the shark-infested waters of the gulf of mexico. we created a policy known as wet foot-dry foot. one foot on dry land and you had a pathway to citizenship. that was the policy of the united states of america to accommodate. i am not saying bring the world in. i am saying follow the law. seems to me that's what we are all about. i believe in the law of the land that i live in and that i love,
and i love my country. so i want to assure persons that we'll use the same standard of proof that we've been using on previous occasions. ow, the next question. impeachment is like voting to go to war. casting a vote to impeach is comparable to casting a vote to go to war. i visit the v.a. hospital annually, madam speaker, and i take flags to every veteran in that hospital. this year we took 600 flags and we needed more. i would ask persons who believe that this is comparable to going to war, casting a vote to go to war, go to the place where you can see the price of freedom. go to the place where you can
see what the cost is, where you will see it's not in silver and gold. go to a v.a. hospital, a v.a. hospital where you will see persons who've lost an arm, lost a leg, no longer with vision. many of them leave and don't return the way they left. just go and see what the price of freedom is like. they fight for our freedom. they're willing to give their lives for our freedom. that's what war -- a vote for war is all about. many don't ever return. they are the liberators. they gave us our freedom by putting their lives on the line, and it is that freedom that we have that allows us to vote to impeach. impeachment -- voting for impeachment is not a vote to go to war. you ask somebody who's lost a
leg in those hospitals, talk to them. or you may find one person you can use and try to equate that to the rest of the world, but i assure you, those veterans don't consider impeachment comparable to voting to go to war. i would also add this. that are those who believe something that the senate won't take up. if we use that line of logic, i shouldn't have gone to law school for fear of failure. if we use that line of logic, we shouldn't have sent h.r. 1 over to the senate because it has been prognosticated that the senate won't take it up in any meaningful way. if we use that line of logic,
there are bills that we send to the senate quite regularly that we would not send because of a belief that the senate won't take up these bills. so i don't buy into that logic, but i do believe that we should give the senate an opportunity to do its job. it ought to have that opportunity. and remember now, this is not about mueller. this is about bigotry emanating from the presidency. this is about having the country by and through its representatives go on record in terms of where we stand in this time of challenge and controversy as it relates to bigotry emanating from the presidency. weeachment is something that it's ould respect because
constitutional. it's what the constitution permits. it's also what i believe i have a duty to bring before the congress. will do so. i do not expect to have -- well, i don't guarantee more than one vote and that's my vote. because there are people who seem to think that if they can convince me that the people who voted for it previously won't be voting for it this time, that the people who voted for it previously -- they changed mayor minds -- changed their minds. they're going to be against you. they're not against me. i'm not against them. i say to them, vote your conscience. stand with your convictions are now. -- where your convictions are now. but there are people who seem to
think that by convincing me that i will be alone, that somehow this will cause me not to act. my dear brothers and sisters, how you have underestimated me. my dear brothers and sisters, i didn't come here to go along so that i could get along and move along. my dear brothers and sisters, you have grossly underestimated me. if i stand alone and there is , i assure youast, that one vote will be -- cast, i assure you that one vote will be cast and i will stand alone. because i understand that in the eons to come, people will look back upon this time and they will query, what was wrong with them? what was wrong with them? unfituld they tolerate an person holding the highest
office in the land? how could they tolerate it? they'll want to know, what was wrong with them? but i also know this. they'll see that there was at least one person who stood on the ground of righteousness, who put the moral imperative above political expediency. and i will know also that the world will know, where this country stands on the issue of bigotry. i didn't come here to manage bigotry. that's what we do, we always want to get back to bigotry as usual after it rears its ugly head. let's put that head down and get back to bigotry as usual. let it be covert, but not overt. my guess is some people have said to the president, mr. president, you can do all of these things without displaying your bigotry. they didn't say it that way. but they probably tried to con since him. just don't -- -- convince him just don't -- you don't have to be raw -- convince him.
just don't -- you don't have to be raw. t i don't want to go back to bigotry as usual. i think we send a message to the world that when we impeach a president for bigotry in policy, and that's what i'm talking about, bigotry in policy. not just his words, i don't think we ought to have a bigot in office, but not just his words. but for what his words have been transformed into. what they have morphed into. bigotry and policy. i think that we would send a positive message to the world in terms of where we stand and we'd also send a message to many of the people in this country as to how much we care about them, those who suffer from bigotry on a daily basis. you take out the head bigot, and you'll send a message to the bigots along the way. at the lower end of the ladder. now, about the people who are
suffering. they have elected us time and time again, many of them on the belief that this time, they're going to take up racism. this time they're going to take up homophobia, xenophobia, islamaphobia, anti-semitism, nativism. this time they're going to take up the issues that impact my life on a daily basis. yes, it's still here. the glass ceiling exists because of bigotry. there's a glass ceiling. yes, it's still here. there are people who have jobs of color and they have to train persons of a different hue to take the job that they have and become their supervisor. still happens.
still occurring in the united states of america. the country i love, by the way. you can love your country and want to see it improved. that's what all of these bills are about here. so everybody that's filing a bill wants to improve the country. that's all i want to do too. the unfortunate circumstance for a good many people is, i want to deal with an issue that we have for too long placed on the back burner of our contemporary agenda. i'm going to place it on the front burner. there will be a vote. how do you know there will be a vote? well, the rules allow it. the rules allow any member of this august body to come forward with a privileged resolution. now, if you want to change the rules, you can do so. republicans didn't do it when they were in control of the house. but you can do it. et's let history show that because one democrat wanted to
ring articles of impeachment that a democratic party did what a republican party would not do. let history reflect that. change the rules. you have to live with the history. i don't. i'm going to be on the right side of history. now, someone would say, but, al, you will be on the wrong side of politics. you know what. the people that i have -- that i know suffered, the people who lived and died so that i could have this opportunity, the people who found out what a billy club hits like, found out what a 90-pound german shepherd bites like, found out what a high-pressured water hose stings like, the people who lost loved ones to a cause so i could have this opportunity, i don't know that they'd want me to be on the right side of politics. i think they'd want me to be on the right side of history.
but i also believe that they want me to be on the right side of this moral issue of our time. and that is whether we will tolerate bigotry emanating from the presidency. so to everyone, understand this is not going to be about obstruction of justice. i came to the floor and called that to the attention of the country. and there's evidence to move forward on obstruction of justice, but i choose not to do so. it's not going to be about conspiracy. there's evidence. i choose not to do so. this is going to be about bigotry. and it's going to be about where do you stand? the truest measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience, but where you stand in times of challenge and controversy. where do you stand when bigotry is the issue that you have to vote on? and to all of my colleagues, i want you to know i love you.
doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on. i respect you. and i only say to you, vote your conscience. decide what side of bigotry, what side of history, what side of righteousness you're going to be on. i know where i'll stand and i will hold my head up high, notwithstanding all of the slings and arrows that are going to come against me. they're coming, they're going to demean me in every way. my mother probably wouldn't know who i am when they're done with me. i understand it. gandhi gave us the formula. first they ignore you. this is -- these are the words of gandhi. then they laugh at you. then after they have ignored you and had a moment of laughter and they see you're not going away, then they fight you. then they demean you.
i understand. so do you what may. say you what may. -- do what you may. say what you may. but i know that within me, that i'm doing the right thing -- but i know within me, that i'm doing the right thing. and i know that gandhi is right. he said, after they've ignored you, after they've laughed, had their moment of pleasure about it, then they fight you, but then gandhi reminded us, then you win. i am prepared to suffer through until victory. i won't give out. to quote my good friend mr. lewis who crossed the edmund pettus bridge on sunday, i won't give up, i won't give in -- bloody sunday, i won't give up, i won't give in. i will do that which my ancestors call upon me to do. pray to god that this house
will vote its conscience. vote your convictions. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. green: madam speaker, i do move that this house do now 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 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.ker pro tempore: the
gentleman from california is recognized for one hour. mr. desaulnier: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, for purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration for this -- of this resolution, all time yielded for is the r for the purposes of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend