tv U.S. House Meets for Legislative Business CSPAN March 17, 2017 11:02am-1:55pm EDT
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. pursuant to house resolution 19 and chair 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house for the further onsideration of h.r. 1367. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1367, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to improve the authority of the secretary of veterans affairs to hire and retain positions and other employees of the department of veterans affairs and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number 14 printed in
part b of house report 115-39 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke, had been disposed of. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in part b of house report 115-39 by the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed business bivoice vote. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in part b of house report 115-39 offered by ms. hanabusa of hawaii. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 400, the nays are eight. the amendment is adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have. it the amendment is adopted -- have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, nled the -- under the rule, the committee rises.
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1367, pursuant to house resolution 198, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the eaker pro tempore: chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has under consideration the bill h.r. 1367 and pursuant to house resolution 198, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to aprove the authority of the secretary of veterans affairs to hire and retain positions and other employees for the department of veterans affairs and for other purposes. the eaker pro tempore: question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. wenstrup: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays yanse. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 412. the nays are zero. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval. journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. roe: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house
the speaker pro tempore: will the house come to order, please take your conversations off the floor, house will come to order. house will come to order, please. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute, for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro temporewitht objection, the gentleman is recognized.
mr. hoyer: tnk you,r. speaker. now it's my pleasure -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the house will be in order, please. mr. hoyer: it's now my pleasure to yield to my friend, mr. mccarthy, the majority leader from california. i yield to my friend. thank the y: i gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccarthy: a sshh. mr. speaker, before i begin, do i want to wish everybody a happy st. patrick's day. mr. speaker, on monday, the louis meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. mr. speaker, late votes are likely in the house on thursday
and members are advised to adjust their schedules accordingly. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced at close of business today. in addition, the house will consider several critical pieces of the republican plan to repeal and replace obamacare. first, h.r. 372, the competitive health insurance reform act, sponsored by representative paul gosar, which createcoetition in the health care market by eliminating anti-trust protection for insurance providers. next, h.r. 1101, the small business health fairness act sponsored by representative sam johnson, which allows small businesses to pool together and purchase plans. an important step towards purchasing health care across state lines. finally, mr. speaker, we will consider f.y. 2017 reconciliation bill, also known as the american health care act. this bill eliminates the many taxes and mandates of obamacare.
gives patients enhanced tools to take control of their health care decisions, and expands choice so americans are free to pick the plan that is best for themselves and their families. mr. speaker, it's known that obamacare is failing and we have a responsibility to provide americans relief. these bills are a result of much deliberation and hard work and their passage will help create a competitive marketplace that provides high quality care at an affordable cost. i thank the gentleman and i yield back and look forward to his questions. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman . i must hasten to add that he added a little comment that it is known. i don't share that view, mr. speaker, that it's known that the affordable care act is failing. in fact, we had a hearing yesterday, when the former director of the congressional budget office appointed by
mocrats testied on the affordable care act and testified on the american health care act. nd lo and behold, mr. speaker, it was agreed -- he agreed with the present c.b.o. director. in other words, everybody in america ought to be pleased on this because they all are asking for bipartisanship, that the former director appointed by democrats of the c.b.o. agrees with the republican director of the c.b.o. who just came down with his advice and counsel to the congress just a few days ago. that ought to give pause to those who are pressing to pass a bill which would result in the loss by 24 million americans of their insurance, and would
result in the increased cost to almost every american of their insurance. now, yes, there are some americans who would choose not to have health care. then they would get sick or they'd get in an automobile accident or something else would happen in which they would require medical care. they would not be able to pay for it. and guess what. we would all pay for it. that's what was happening before the affordable care act. it is still happening with some who choose either to pay their contribution towards health, some people call it a penalty, i call it a contribution, to meet their personal responsibility as the heritage foundation suggested of having provisions that in if -- that if they get sick, they'll be able to pay for it. now, last week, mr. speaker, my friend, the majority leader, had some quotes of people who did not like the affordable care act. at this hearing that we had, we had a number of people, i want
to quote some of them. i certainly never imagined i would have a child who would rely so much on a government program like medicaid. this child, mr. speaker, suffers from red syndrome, which is a neurological disorder that strikes mostly young girls, with normal development for the first 18 or 24 months of their life, and then their development is arrested and in fact in some respects there is a retreat in their abilities. she went on to say, medicaid provides skilled nursing care which allows us to raise our daughter, caroline, in our home, instead of a hospital or institution. of course a hospital or institution would be far more expensive. she went on to say, this allows my husband and me to hold jobs and take care of other family needs. the house republican plan, s said, for medicaid would put my daughter's life at ri.
and my family is terrified. that was mattera connor, a mother of a child -- marta connor, a mother of a child with red syndrome comped under medicaid. another quote -- covered under medicaid. another quote from our hearing yesterday, and i titled this hearing, the hearing that the republicans refuse to have on the american health care act, or the affordable care act itself. this quote is, in public debate in congress, the actual people can be obscured by graphs and numbers. but, ladies and gentlemen, every day in clinics, this was a doctor, i am one-on-one with the real people. real americans. who could take steps closer to help or suffer more with this congress' decision -- health or suffer more can with congress this congress -- more with this
congress' decision. i urge to you strengthen the affordable care act. to that extent, mr. speaker, as the majority leader knows, that testimony joined hundreds of medical -- the a.m.a., the association of physicians with particular skill sets, of hospitals, of insurance mpanies, of patients, of providers, of urban hospitals, suburban hospitals, and rural hospitals. literally hundreds of people intimately involved in the health care system who are rging us not to pass the american health care act and to leave in place but improve the affordable care act. mr. speaker, i have indicated to many that we are, on this side of the aisle, prepared to work
to improve any piece of legislation that has been passed and particularly a piece of legislation which affects so many americans. unfortunately we have not had that opporty since this bill, the affordable care act, was first considered and passed. this week the congressional budget office released their estimate and impacts of house republicans' bill to repeal the affordable care act. president trump, mr. speaker, as the majority leader knows, in this body, at that lot of rum, promised -- rostrum, promised insurance for everybody. that is much less expensive and much better. he's not offered such a bill. the american health care act certainly does not provide that. in fact, c.b.o., both republican
and democratic directors, opined at least 24 million people will lose the insurance. and by 2026 there will be 58 million people in america ithout health insurance. mr. speaker, the majority leader has indicated this bill will be on the floor next week. i hope that everybody takes the opportunity to read the c.b.o. port and the testimony given the sterday's hearing on bill. the first and only hearing that was held on the bill that will be on the floor. previous hearings that the affordable care act is not good, previous hearings that there are
alternative out there don't deal with the bill that's going to be on the floor this wednesday. or next wednesday or thursday. susan collins has said of the bill that's going to be on the floor, it should prompt the house to slow down and reconsider certain provisions of the bill. she was referring, of course, to the c.b.o. report. senator bill cassidy from that liberal left wing bastion of can't sugar d, coat it, doesn't look good, the c.b.o. score was, shall we say, an eye-popper. i also hope it was a thought-provoker. senator rob portman, who served in this body for many years, said, i'm concerned about the medicaid population. that's the biggest part of coverage for ohio. that's why he's governor, a
republican, and rob portman, a republican who served on the ways and means committee, is urging caution and has great reservations about the bill that has been announced to come to the floor. . spear, i would like to ask the majority leader whether or note can coirm whether changes will be made to the repeal bill, that is the american health care act that was reported out of the budget committee, whether he can confirm whether or not that bill will -- the repeal bill will be changed before it comes to the floor, and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i know there were a lot of questions in there let me work through and try answer all of those. your last question was in regards to the bill itself. we are working through the process. fwl in rules committee. as the legislative process works, there are always ways you refine the bill, i expect there will be some elements that get
refined in rules committee. you had about five different questions there, if i may follow through. first you talked about -- and i was happy to hear, i wrote it down. you are glad to work to help improve the bill. because when we were in the more than 26 hours of energy and commerce, the amendments the democrats offered, and we spent a couple of hours on just the one about a hashtag of renaming. if there's a change in attitude, i appreciate that. mr. hoyer: just to clarify, the bill to which he is referring is not the bill to which i was referring. i was referring to the affordable care act and and he is referring to the american health care act. mr. mccarthy: you're not willing to help with this? mr. hoyer: of course work the affordable care act.
we think the bill that has been offered will devastate many individuals, millions and millions and millions of people in this country, we have said that pretty clearly. but more importantly, the c.b.o. director appointed by republicans said that in his report tch was, by the way, mr. speaker, given after -- after it was considered in either one of the questions, either the energy and commerce committee or the ways and means committee. they did not wait for the c.b.o. report. my opinion, mr. speaker, they did not wait for the c.b.o. report because they knew how devastatingly nellingtive the c.b.o. report would be to the legislation they were considering. i yield back to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding back to me, it seems the gentleman has a little short-term memory about how they brought the affordable care act and the c.b.o. report was not brought before us until
it came on the floor. my response back was i was actually excited to hear that democrats wanted to work with us. that their attitude has changed from when we were in committee and we had amendments going forward tt it was no longer going to be hashtag amendment bus it would be productive amendments. i thank you for having that change of attitude. i'm proud of the transparent process we've taken in the house. thing needs to be reminded to the american public. as i mentioned last week, our health care bill is the result of 113 hearings. i know the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, he's proud of the 7 hearings they had before they did the affordable care act. we have now marked up this bill in three separate committees with over 18 hours of debate in ways and means and over 27 hours of debate in energy and commerce. the countless amendments from both republicans and democrats. the time we vote on the floor
this bill will have been publicly available online for three weeks. now it's only 127 personal injuries. that is a far contrast to the 2,700-plus pages, if you want to obamacare.to so far nearly 590,000 people have visited our website. and over 200,000 have downloaded this legislative text. so mr. speaker, that means more people have read our health care bill than went to woodstock. i call that transparency. republicans have been committed to repealing and replacing obamacare for years, and so now i think it's time to act. the gentleman also commented about the c.b.o. i'm actually excited that you had another person that confirmed with what the c.b.o. said. because the c.b.o. says about this bill, it will lower the deficit by $337 billion. it will also reduce premiums by 10% by 2026. and it will secure major entitlement reform by capping medicaid spend, giving states certainty and flexibility, saving taxpayers $880 billion
and making the program solvent for future generations. that was a concern in one of the letters. mr. speaker, those are the facts. regards to the coverage numbers, the c.b.o. reports that midwest of that increase would stem from repealing the penalties associated with individual mandates. let me repeat that. most of the increase would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate. now that makes sense to me. because we no longer force americans to buy something they do not want. one size fits all health care, they will naturally choose not to buy it. but, mr. speaker, i know the gentleman across the other side of the aisle argues with me about the knowledge that everybody knows obamacare is failing. i'd ask the gentleman to visit one third of the counties in this country that only have one option now. why don't you go to tennessee
where the president just was. you know 16 counties in tennessee have no option? but obamacare will penalize you for not having health care when you can't even buy it. if obamacare was working so well, why do more people accept the penalty or the exemption than actually buy obamacare? that's a number that's quite interesting. that's why i encourage the c.r. plan will decrease the premiums that people have been asking for. our goal is not just to sign up people for insurance. our goal is to get america better health care. now the gentleman also commented and had letters and i love to read letters. i love to listen to constituents. that's what our work should be. and you read a letter when it came to medicaid. i would not scare people, i would actually talk to that individual. medicaid is on an unsustainable ath.
in one 10-year window it will cost $1 trillion. mr. speaker, the gentleman on the other side knows what in $1 trillion is. at's out an entire amount we spend on discretionary spending. from al pprthe ariations we go through, that would take up erythinwe have. we know that is not sustainable so we should do something about it. that's why we had a meeting with 18 governors, republicans, democrats, the number one thing they tolds, give us flexibility to be able to manage. that's exactly what this bill does. but i'd like -- but i like to read letters. here's one from coleen from annapolis. i just received the notice from my 2017 insurance policy. it will skyrocket. not by the advertised maryland state arch of 20% to 25%. but rather by 60%. in addition, my deductible is going up 45%. since the inception of obamacare, my policy has increased 75%.
i'm a 63-year-old female in excellent health who takes no medication. my only benefit for the a.c.a. has been two mammograms which i paid $12,600 in premiums to get. what a disaster of a program. i will be voting republican this year in the hope of finally getting the a.c.a. repealed. i just hope it happens before my checkbook goes life support. or the letter to the editor from carl in maryland. i can't afford my health insurance now under obamacare. it's been a burden on our joint income which is just above the limit for qualifying for subsidies. and for 2017, i'm facing a 61% rate increase. 61%. i'm faced with either paying a premium that will bankrupt me and my wife or paying the tax penalty at the end of the year. which will be unaffordable.
and there are probably several million americans who are in the same boat as i am. you know what? carl, we listened to you. we listened and now we're going to lead. we haveoved a bill from the legislative process to the rules for reconciliation. we have done hours of debate in three other committees. we will continue the process as the rule says, we'll go to the rules committee and then we'll come to this floor. and for those who have written, change will come. and yes, the republican appointed c.b.o. director and the democratic c.b.o. director as the gentleman, mr. speaker, from across the aisle say agree that the premiums will go down. as so many americans have asked for. we will put medicaid on a sustainable path. we will give republicans, democrats, flexibility to manage their state in a better form. and most importantly, we will
give america exactly what they asked for. the freedom to choose their own health care. the options of having more. 10 they can direct what they want and desire. at the same time, having a lower cost. so i welcome the gentleman for his questions, i know that wasn't about scheduling. but i think this is too important. those 113 hearings, we listened to the people before us and we promised we would act and we're keeping that promise as we move forward. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. people, i'm sure, listening to this colloquy must get confused. as they hear one representation from somebody who sounds pretty reasonable, my friend mr. mccarthy. and then they hear exactly the opposite from me. so they'll have to make a judgment. the bill that's going to be on the floor next week was ntroduced a week ago monday.
42 as marked up less than hours later. not a single american, my friend the majority leader, mr. speaker, said, i love to listen to constituents. not a single constituent on his side of the aisle or my side of the aisle, mr. speaker. had the opportunity to testify on this bill. not a single one of my constituents or the majority leader's constituents. had the opportunity to know what the c.b.o. said was going to happen. that 24 million people would lose their insurance. 4 million next year. that medicare would be put at risk and medicaid would be gutted.
by 2021. not a single constituent was listened to because they had no opportunity to come and say, his is what i think. testimony to which i referred was yesterday. i don't know the dates on the letters that the gentleman just read. but perhaps they were just within the last few days. but i will tell that 6 -year-old man that what this bill does -- that 63-year-old woman that what this bill does if you have get -- crease, you'll you go from five to one ratio to three to one ratio, that seniors, those 65 years of aming are referred to as seniors.
the bill will allow the insurance company to do a five to one ratio rather than a three to one ratio that 60% will go up by 40. maybe get to 100%. mr. speaker, the american people know about transparency. that means they can see something. the gentleman says, well, now it's online. yes, they had 40 hours give or take. to see this bill from monday night until wednesday when it was marked up and it was marked up and passed in the ways and means committee in the dead of night. sort of like they passed the prescription drug bill. at 5:59 a.m. in the morning. majority leader wasn't here. was here. perhaps there's a predilection
to middle of the night. by the time the energy and commerce committee passed it, they'd been in session for over 24 hours and were bleary-eyed. and as i told him last week, mr. speaker, my folks were not up at 4:00 in the morning watching the energy and commerce committee. d i would tell him further that he said the bill was now online and people had an opportunity to read it. perhaps, mr. majority leader, mr. speaker, is why the affordable care is now got more support from the country than it has had at any time since its existence. 49% of americans now like the affordable care act, perhaps the reason it's happening now is they've had the chance to see the alternative the republicans
are offering on wednesday. this bill that they offered is going to significantly raise, i will tell colleen, her out-of-pocket expenses. and yes, under their bill, the c.b.o. says that perhaps the premiums will go down. why will the premiums go down? why does insurance go up and down? because the risk goes up and down. and the greater the risk, the more the cost. but if you don't allow people who are sick people to get into the system, because they can't afford it, then the risk goes down. and when the risk goes down, and you shut people out of the system, and 24 million people are out of the system, yes, of course, the rates go down. because you're ensure -- insuring the healthy. americans know that very well. because they know when they have automobile insurance, which by the way they're mandated to have in almost every state, if not every state, why are they mandated to have it? so the rest of us are protected
when we have an accident or we're protected from our rates going up because there's not a broad spectrum of the insured. so that the risk can be minimal for the insurance company. that y to my friend c.b.o. has told the truth. the americans have seen that. and they don't like that. so i would urge those on the er side of the aisle to be very careful when they vote either wednesday or thursday on this bill because this bill is going to have a very detrimental effect on the american people. i understand there are going to be two other bills. there are going to be four bills on the floor, as i understand
it. can the gentleman inform us when we will see the details of this dditional legislation? mr. mccarthy: i ask the gentleman, which bills is he referring to? mr. hoyer: the third bill and the fourth bill. mr. mccarthy: those will be later in the month. next week we'll have two of those up. mr. hoyer: will we -- are they available now to be reviewed prior to them coming up later in the month? mr. mccarthy: the committee has marked them up. mr. hoyer: ok. lastly, and i know you're glad to hear that comment, as are the folks waiting for one-minutes, have received a letter from secretary mnuchin on march 8. it was directed to the speaker. mr. leader.
and like most secretaries of the treasury, he is hoping that we will pursue financially responsible and competence-building policies. i won't read the whole letter. but he says in the last paragraph, as i said in my confirmation hearing, honoring the full faith and credit of our outstanding debt is a critical commitment. i encourage congress to raise the debt limit at the first opportunity so that we can proceed with our joint priorities. mr. speaker, i ask the majority leader whether that is going to be scheduled in the near term, because on march 15 we met the debt limit extension. this administration and every previous administration has prolong the time
by using default, extra mechanisms so that we're in effect not investing in the retirement system or something else and paying our debts. i have indicated publicly, mr. speaker, and i reiterate here that i will urge my side to support a debt limit extension if it's clean. what i mean by clean, if it does not incorporate something that is not aagreed to -- agreed to and there is not a consensus on. by that i mean simply, if there are things that we have a consensus on that need to be passed, certainly including those in a debt limit extension would not be objectionable. if there are items had -- items in that bill designed to force us to vote for what is a responsible policy, but takes something that we obviously very
strongly disagree with, we will not do so. so my questiono the majority leader is, a, can wexpect a clean debt limit extension? b, can we expect that in the near term as secretary mnuchin requests? so that we can put that matter ehind us and not undermine confidence in our fiscal posture as a nation. and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i think we both agree that responsible fiscal policy is important to our country's ability to succeed. that includes honoring the full faith and credit of the united states. we expect to continue working closely with secretary mnuchin to ensure that america's on the right path to a strong fiscal future. we know the amount of debt that has been added in the last eight years has been tremendous. and i know that the gentleman, when he looks to what we do next
week, to be able to lower premiums, save more than $300 billion to the deficit, and let people have more choice, that is also a first step. i do not have any immediate action to announce, but we will relay any information to the members as we move forward. and i thank the gentleman. is that going to be your last question? mr. hoyer: it will probably be my last question. i have an additional observation. mr. mccarthy: before i depart, though, i would like, mr. speaker, to wish my friend from the other side of the aisle a ery happy st. patrick's day. do i apologize or i feel bad for when we look at the basketball round, what happened to maryland, but if you look at n.i.t., cal state-bakersfield is still on the march. i have another too many you can root for. i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask that the gentleman's words be taken down. i have never had such a vicious
attack made on me. but i must admit, i was deeply disappointed last night. my congratulationso the young men at xavier and their coach. but my, my, my, i was disappointed in the quality of our play. we have a great group of young people playing. but it was not their night. i'm sure that i will pick another team sometime, as the march madness continues. what i would hope, though, that we would not have march madness on this floor next week. mr. mccarthy: there will be no psets. mr. hoyer: i guess the answer to at question, mr. speaker, is what a will determine an upset? will the american people be upset? -- is what will determine an
upset? will the american people be upset? will the republicans be upset? the question -- the answer to that question remains in the hands of our republican colleagues. because what i wanted to do in observation, i disagree with all three of the propositions that the majority leader said in his closing statement. this is not going to reduce the budget. yes, on its face they give a $600 billion tax cut to the wealthiest in america. where do they take it from? medicaid. some of the poorest peoe in america. that's where that money comes from. premiums are going to go up. deductibles are going to go up. you can quote me on this. two, three years interest now, i don't think your bill's going to your m now, i don't think bill's going to pass, it may pass this floor, but it will not become law.
the majority leader's statement, mr. speaker, that that's what the american people are expecting, i disagree with that. what the president of the united states said he was going to give to the american people is insurance for everybody. the majority leader ignores the 24 million, we really haven't spoken about that. we spoke about some other observations in the c.b.o. report. as did speaker ryan. i don't blame them. i try to point to some positive indicate rts my -- indicators myself. i think this is going to up the deficit. it's going to up costs. and it will decrease the insured. d make hospitals have more uncompensated care. we'll have this debate next week, mr. speaker. but on the last issue i would hope, mr. leader, that we do
agree on fiscal responsibility. i happen to believe, as you know, that the debt limit issue is a phony issue. a totally political issue. it's en used as a political issue on both sides of the aisle. there should be no question, but of course the united states is going to pay its debt. of course the united states is ing to pay people who it's bought things from. of course it's going to pay people moneys that thesk been promised. of course it's -- that they've been promised. of course it's going to do that. this is not about new spending. it's about spending that we've already incurred. i would urge the majority leader to bring a clean bill to the floor. i will work with him. we will get the wloming majority of democrats to -- the overwhelming majority of democrats to vote for that. let's not blame one another for the debt. there's plenty of opportunity to do that and both sides are guilty of that result. with that, mr. speaker, if he has nothing further he want to
say, i will yield back the balance of my time. -- he wants to say, i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday, march 20, 2017, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, it is so ordered. the chair will now interat that in-- entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the entleman from ohio rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to talk about welfare, an opportunity to re-organize our 92 social safety net programs. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman has the opportunity to address the house for one minute.
>> thank you, mr. speaker. i call attention to the 92 programs that over time, since the great society, our country has launched. and call atteion ronald reagan' quote about the near eternity of government programs. it's very hard to take a program away once launched. this plan acts on brookings institute's data, which has rarely been accused of being on the right side of the political ideology. it says that we do three things, we eliminate 80% of poverty. graduate high school, work full time at any wage, and have no kids outside of marriage. this program that i'm proposing in this bill, h.r. 1469, welfare benefits realignment commission, would nominate four republicans and four democrats and they would have a year to work together until september 30, 2018, to prioritize not taking any money away, taking the 92 programs and making them fewer.
so if you think about the social worker out on the -- in the country, trying to help somebody who's in a social safety net, each of these programs may have a four-inch binder. i don't think we need 92. maybe it's six, maybe it's 12. it's not 92. mr. davidson: i encourage my colleagues to support this and work together to make this a so that ient program we can help meet the needs. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i ask to address the house for one minute, unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, you're recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. just a little bit of history. let me first of all say happy st. patrick's day. many know that the irish fled in the 1800's, if my history is correct, because of the potato famine. we welcome them as immigrants. as an early member of the immigration subcommittee, i remember the irish sit sithing in our -- sitting in our hearing
room saying, remember the irish, as it relates to immigration. we all have come from someplace to do better. this last week i said in the budget committee, listening to debate on the health care bill, and i stand here today to argue rousely against the medicaid -- vigorously against the medicaid changes. $880 billion taken away from medicaid for low-income, hardworking americans. and the language that was added to the bill to instruct that we should not incentivize or that we should make sure that able-body -- able-bodied men do not get medicai let me say th in the spirit of those who have come to this nation this bill cannot stand. because it ignores the vulnerable and the people who need health insurance, who are themselves either addicted or have families. i want to stand for what america is right for, its values. let us vote down a health care bill that does not help america
become unsick. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the entleman from illinois rise? without objection, you're ecognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to recognize sodsobe -- todd zobrist a paramedic in highland, illinois. yesterday afternoon he was first to arrive on a scene after receiving a call with a vehicle in silver lake with a person inside. when he saw the vehicle partially submerged he swam out to search for someone inside he found an unresponsive baby boy, rescued him and began c.p.r. on the roof of the vehicle. he was able to evaive the 3-month-old at the scene and the baby was transported to st. louis hospital where he is expected to make a full recovery. i would like to commend todd for his heroic and life-saving
actions. it's a great tribute to southern illinois and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? without objection, you are recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. here are the facts. the affordable care act covered over 20 million americans. house republicans' bill will strip 24 million people of their health care. i received thousands of calls, emails, and social media messages regarding this topic from constituents opposing the repeal and sharing their stories of how the affordable care act has helped them and how feherty -- terrified they are of losing their coverage. i'd like to share just one of those stories. daria from redland wrote to me about medical, california's medicaid program. she suffers from a debilitating disease and closed her letter,
quote, there are tens of thousands born like me, citizens, moms, dads, loving our families through hardship and disease. all of us would be absolutely devastated by the loss of our insurance coverage. mr. speaker, what would you say to daria about your plan that will cut medicaid and raise the cost of insurance on families like hers while giving tax breaks to the uber wealthy? instead of working with democrats to improve the bill, republicans drafted it in secret, rushed it through committee in the dead of night and are now ramming it through congress. this plan is bad for he middle class. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one hin and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: it is said that there is no need in childhood as strong as the need far father's protection. that's the father's job. recently a texas father arrogantly violated all of his responsibilities. he forcibly sex trafficked his
teenage daughter. in the milky darkness of night he would take her to truck stops an coerce her to have sex so he could pocket the filthy lucre. the 15-year-old was sold to multiple customers in a single night. each dollar the deviant collected was stolen a the -- at the expense of his daughter's childhood. his evil and greed were so bad he placed ads on the internet to sell his daughter. she was sold on the marketplace of sex trafficking. but the girl was rescued, the defendant was convicted and put in the deepest powells of a texas prison. we -- deepest bowls of a texas prize. our children, our daughters are not for sale. that's just the way it is and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise without objection, you are recognized for one minute. >> the camera of history is rolling.
and oftentimes, here on the house floor, records it. so i want to make sure that we're clear. when i think about going back into the 1990's, it was bill and hillary clinton that put forward a health care plan. mr. meeks: my colleagues on the other side were working to stop it. and they did. and we had nothing. for six of eight years that i was here from 2000 until 2006, they controlled both the house, the senate, and the presidency. they did nothing in reference to health care. it took 2008 and barack obama to come up with the affordable care act that gave 20 million americans health care that didn't have it that made sure those that had a pre-existing condition could continue to make sure that there was no discrimination against women and girls, make sure they had equal health care. to make sure you removed the caps so americans would not be caught as they were beforehand going bank bankrupt, disturbing families and separating families
who did not know how to make it to tomorrow. it was the affordable care act. and yet here, history will record that we have our colleagues who are planning to vote on thursday to take those 20 million americans that did not have access to health care away from health care and back to the bad old days. we can't doe doe -- we can't go there i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? without objection, you're recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the house's effort this is week to improve the employment standards of the department of veterans' affairs. mr. lamalf recent years complex process can take up to a year to remove or discipline a v.a. employee for misconduct or subpar performance. they have had trouble firing one employee who participated in an armed robbery and another who participated in a surgery while intoxicated.
since last year, the deputy secretary testified at a hearing it was too difficult to fire bad employees. that's why i was happy we could vote in the house this week for the veterans accountability first act of 2017. it provides secretaries more flexibility to demote, suspend, or remove employees for misconduct or subpar performance. additionally the house passed a second bill today, allowing the v.a. to recruit and retain the best in the field. as a result, they can fire bad employees and replace them with good ones who have a passion that we can retain in these agencies that want to work hard for veterans. this will lead directly to higher care for veterans which is the whole reason and purpose why we do this anyway. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom california rise? without objection, you are recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in honor of the memory of my good
friend of nearly three decades, michael j. grobstein of ensee noah, california who passed away, wednesday, march 8. he died at home surrounded by his loving family, including his wife of 53 years, his children, marla and mark, and his grandchildren. mr. sherman: 50 years ago, as a young, talented c.p.a. , he founded a c.p.a. firm which grew to be the largest accounting firm in the san fernando valley. in that role he provided financial and strategic advice to businesses throughout southern california and beyond. there are thousands of people who are employed today at businesses that michael guided with insight and wisdom. michael served as a founding member and president of the executes a group of business leaders in the valley formed to support the jew herb home for thege, where my own mother
lives along with hundreds of those enjoys their -- enjoying their seniors tissue senior years. for that effort, barry and michael were herbed -- earned the circle of life award. as lifelong residents of the valley, both michael and beri were involved in so many charities, including the grossman burn foundation the city of hope, cal state university north ridge, sherman oaks hospital and the sheriff's youth foundation. above all, michael was an example. one of the san fernando valley's finest community leaders and a good friend. he will be missed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor veterans who have served in our country's armed forces. for over 240 years, millions of
brave souls have fought, bled, and some have died to defend our american freedom. the bible says greater love hath no man that this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. mr. speaker, the american veteran truly has great love for his fellow man. because of the great sacrifices of our veterans, we must see to their care and well beings. we have often failed in this, left our veterans helpless, suffering thru bureaucratic nightmares to get the care they need. mr. biggs: the phoenix v.a. has worked hard to improve its service and the newly opened center is intent on providing the best care for our nation's finest. while conditions have been improving in phoenix and around the nation, there's still much work to be done. i have made it a priority oprovide excellent service to the veterans in my district. our veterans did not leave us behind and mr. speaker we cannot leave them behind. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the vice president: for what purpose does the gentleman --
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from the northern mariana islands rise? without objection, you are recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. sablan: as this week passed and last week, i have watched members on both sides of the aisle debate about the better parts of either the affordable care act or its replacement, the affordable accessible health care act. for the people i represent and the people of the northern marianas and the insular areas, none of this matters to us because none of those mandates, none of those subsidies, ever apply to us. the one thing that did apply to us was medicaid. not expansion. not the regular program. but block grants for medicaid.
that has now been just completely taken out of the bill before us. the o come october 1, when people i represent, there are 14,000 participants in medicaid in the northern marianas. over 10,000 are children and students. and they will no longer have access to health care because they lose their medicaid coverage. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, you are recognized. mr. can hen -- mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm a proud move the house of representatives yet at the same time i'm embarrassed that we have followed down the rabbit's hole, our current president's suggestion that president obama
wiretapped trump tower. our president has the f.b.i. and the intelligence agencies at his beck and call. he could easily make a phone call and know whether or not it's true. but instead he asked congress to make an investigation. and congress agrees. this is absurd. it didn't happen. and in fact, his security advisor called the british to apologize for suggesting that the british were listening in on trump tower. our nation needs to be more like it was when george washington was president and he was known to have said, i cannot tell a lie. we need to be straight with the american people. microwaves cannot take pictures or surveil your house and the past president is an honorable man who committed no crime and should not be accused of such. i yield back the balance of my polini movie this
ends quickly. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities or profanities toward the president. the chair lay tpwhevers house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. mccutchen of virginia for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request is granted. under the speaker's policy of january 3rks2017, the gentleman from texas, mr. fwomeert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. happy st. patrick's day. february 17, st. patrick's day. a day like so many that has become a reason for frivolity and joy, fun, some think it's a day just for drinking. ut st. patrick is remembered not because he drank, not frivolity, but because he was a dedicated christian, committed to serving the lord, and i think it's good
on st. patrick's tai to remember hy he was a saint. now going 180 degrees from talking about saints, mr. speaker, i think it's worth discussing the decision made by a federal judge in hawaii, also in maryland. we have judges that have become dictators. we have judges that have ceased to abide by the constitution. . made themselves politicians, they -- though they do not run for office. a true judge an ethical judge -- judge, an ethical judge, would
eview a document such as the president's executive order for what is, what it says, it does. intent is not an issue. what does it do? the president of the united states, donald j. trump, was seeking and is seeking to protect americans. we have judges, they're not interested in protecting americans so much as they are patronizing and sucking up to the liberals in the country. those in the media, those in entertainment, those in their high-brow circles.
they're not interested in following the constitution or the law. we had a hearing in the the ninthcommittee on circuit this week. the ninth circuit apparently is the most overturned circuit in the country. more a massive number of cases filed in their circuit than any other circuit. fact, i've now filed a bill that would divide the ninth circuit so that the ninth circuit would be comprised of california only. , n all the other states , izona, nevada, utah, wyoming montana, oregon, washington,
alaska, hawaii and territories, may have missed a state. but all of the other states and territori would be in a new 12th circuit. the judges that are currently on the 12th circuit court in my bill -- that are currently part of the ninth circuit would remain with the ninth circuit. and we would have a new circuit and the judges would be appointed by the current president. i know there are a lot of people in california that have been begging for years to be carved out of the ninth circuit court their ls because destructive, unconstitutional decisions are doing great harm to those who believe in the constitution as written, not as
some liberal judge thought it should be as he tries or she at to play up to friends their get-togethers. they would be hailed as being so wise. but the truth is, as scripture talks about, these are people that are wise in their own eyes. they're diagnose great harm to the united states of america -- they're doing great harm to the united states of america. when anyone in any kind of eadership position loses their common sense, they are educated beyond common sense, they educate common sense completely out of some folks in the united , we have problems.
and any time people are educated and taught to believe that what stinctively they knew or taught was not the right thing and those people become leaders in the country, that its travel s up down the road to the dust bin of the history. -- of history. and no nation has ever latested forever. no nation -- lasted forever. no nation er will in this world. it's not going to happen. so the question is, from its founding, how long does it go? it depends on how long the leaders of that nation can keep within their
consideration in making decisions. that's not happening. good sense is not being used by judges who have assumed powers they never had. ere never given. under the constitution, the powers regarding refugees, immigration, those decisions are left to the president. and some judge may say, oh, you can't consider religion, but indeed any judge that so says is completely wrong. thank god religion has been considered many times. when jews were being persecuted and killed, it was appropriate to say, we want to welcome jews ut of those horrors as
refugeesing, bring them in -- refugees, bring them in. but this nation is being put at risk by judges who are wise in their own eyes. now, there's an article here about the hawaii judge. it was written -- it's in "the guardian." les carpenter. olver laughlin, liz barney. it was written apparently before the decision was made. but u.s. district judge watson is one of several judges hearing arguments over the ban in the final hours before its implementation. said on wednesday afternoon, after hearing oral arguments that he would issue a written ruling before 6:00 p.m. hawaii time. hawaii was the first state to challenge the second version of trump's travel ban. after the first was halted by the court order.
state argued the ban's unconstitutional. it would suffer damage to its local economy, the various educational and religious institutions. also argued that some hawaiians will be prevented from reuniting with family members swept up in the ban. and that is heart-rending, but the fact is, none of those are a basis for reversing a presidential executive order that congress gave the president and the constitution together gave the president to issue. so, we also find from comments that the courts didn't look to the four corners of the document. look what the document says. because many of us know that as long as the constitn is the
foundational bedrock for the country, wha a solid foundation. but when we have judges like this derek watson or the judge , or james robart ho issued a ban in the first travel order, when they don't pay attention to the constitution, but pay more attention to what they hear from their liberal friends who are disgusted by the elected president of the united states, and they know they'll be heroes nd they long for the accolades of the intelligencia, which actually isn't the intelligent
-- educated yes, intelligent, no. but the constitution gives certain powers, certain parts of the government. congress has the power to make decisions on immigration, migration, naturalization. but it has the power to delegate those responsibilities as it sees fit to the president. and it has done so -- the resident has certain powers of his own office, of his own right, to protect the united states of america. that you judges think should not consider the fact that one of the most educated people in the world on what islam is and what it isn't says the islamic state is islam. e has a ph.d. in islamic
studies, university of baghdad, as i recall. and he happens to be the head of the islamic state. but the judge would have us disregard the fact that a man that spent his life studying holy koran, the because the koran that's brought around to some of our offices, they take out verses that have to do with violence against those who are not muslims. but the holy koran he spent his life studying. but these judges would say, oh, no, no, you can't consider the fact that these radical islamists claim to be muslim orris lambists -- or islamists, you can't consider that. one article out this week
pointed out that somebody should that the judges errorists coming in from the nations designated by the president are muslim. they're not christians. they're not jews. they're not secularists. they're radical islamists. and it's ridiculous to have to , tinually state the obvious that we all know. that all muslims are not a threat to the united states. but it is absurd not to understand that those who in the me of allah are killing,
to ading, torturing, trying destroy free society in the name of allah, they should not be allowed into the united states. and if they're u.s. citizens and heir goal is to supplant the u.s. constitution with shari'a aw, that's treasonous. and that's why i was so pleased with presidenciesy, as a muslim leader, -- president cici, as a muslim leader, telling a room full of imams, we have to stand up to the radicals who have hijacked our religion. president obama didn't know that. he kept continuinging to say that, oh, no, the islamic state, it's not islamic. these islamic terrorists are not islamic.
when actually, wise muslim leaders like president ceasey -- cisse, they understand, yes, these people are islamic, they claim it in the name of allay, they claim it in the name of the holy koran, but they have hijacked our religion and it's time to stand up to them. and as long as we have world forically are met speaking -- metaphorically speaking without clothes, and nobody has the nerve among the world leaders to say, you're naked, put on some clothes, again, for the -- those who are educated beyond their intellectual level, that means you got to call it like it is. and don't just go along to play to the crowd, the media, the hollywood types. stand up and call it like it is.
and we have a president that's trying to do that. and there is no doubt, as justice scalia said aboute of the ill-advised decisions previously made by the supreme court, this will end up costing american lives. these decisions, if they're lowed to stand, by these unconstitutional judges, it will cost american lives. and the blood will be on the jummings' hands and their pursuit of accolades and popularity among the . o-intellectual elite they left common sense behind nd put our nation at risk. it's tragic.
. d i have the two decisions from the courts. the one from the district of hawaii. and the one from maryland. district of maryland. but it's interesting in this article i was reading, mr. speaker, it says the judge was going to, within just a matter brief hours, have his 42 or 43-page decision made. s the hawaii decision. 3 pages.
seems to me somebody must have been working on that before the case -- before oral arguments. the decision must have been worked on before that to have a 43-page decision within the matter of a few hours. but let's face it. the litigants surely knew before they everad hearing what the surely knew before, that he wa prejudiced, was no way going to have a fair hearing. he was going to end up ridiculing the president of the ited states and unwittingly, witlessly, putting america at isk. when we have testimony here from the f.b.i. director saying, we will vet these people, but we have nothing against which we
can check the information they give us. yeah, we'll vet them, but we got nothing to check their information against, as director comey pointed out, at least in iraq, we had government records from iraq. we had the criminal records. but in syria, since the obama administration was so diametrically opposed to the assad administration in syria, well the official government certainly wasn't sharing information. and since this administration said we were going to stop the islamic state, even though we did nothing if the administration decision, at least, decisions, but help the islamic state grow bigger and stronger, and kept sending
weapons, material, to what this administration -- the obama administration thought or said were our friends and allies but actually ended up repeatedly allowing the weaponry, the heavy artillery, tanks, to fall into the hands of the islamic stat,, sharing the information they had about the people of syria. baghdaddi made clear they were going to get some of their best warriors mixed in with refugees and they surely have when you have judges their se their eyes, wet finger, and hold it up for our liberal friends to blow on so they know which direction they should move.
we get bad decisions that put the nation at risk. for those of white house have spent much or our lives studying history, it's very clear. since you know no nation lasts forever, then you look at important milestones along the rise and along the demise and these are the kind of decisions that lead to a country's demise. when you refuse to recognize what your enemies say that they are your enemies, they're going to destroy your way of life, they're going to get refugees who are terrorists into your country because you're so stupid you don't know how to defend yourself, you want to pat yourself on the back for being so open minded and open doored that you allow your killer to come in and kill you just like the proverbial song and tale
taking in a snake, warming it, bringing it back to life and it bites the rescuer. or the tale of the tortoise carrying the scorpion across the water and then being stung. when people tell you they despice your way of life, they're going to bring your way of life down, when their documents tell you that they believe that you are infidels and need to be destroyed, there has to be somebody at the top of the country's leadership that understands the risk and stands up to protect the country. and when people like these judges take the constitution into their own hands, rip it up, say, i don't care what
restrictions we have on us. i won't have any restrictions. i'm a federal judge for life. well, that's only so long as the judge has good behavior and these judges have -- and these judges have not had good behavior. they have taken powers unto themselves. their name might as well be chavez or morrissey. -- or morsi. taking power into their own hards that they were never supposed to have. but at least in the case of chavez and possibly morsi, they won elections. there was a great deal of fraud involved in morsi's election. it's questionable whether he actually won. but the threats eliminated any contest to the election results.
but the 30 million or so that went to thetreets and demanded his ouster in egypt, the greatest public step in world history, demanding the removal of an unconstitutional leader, in world history, never been 30 million people go to the streets, peaceably, there wasn't -- it wasn't all peace. but the part that wasn't peace was caused by the muslim brotherhood. shast why they've been labeled a terrorist organization. that's why the united states should label them as a terrorist organization. regardless of what anybody hinks about president trump, his order was an attempt to protect americans and judges who think they are unaccountable as we haven't impeached near enough
, become dictators. seize power that was never given to them. and that's why i've got a bill that we're preparing that would eliminate any jurisdiction for any federal court other than the supreme court to take up an issue involving immigration or refugees. other than immigration courts. but not on a constitutional level. not to issue an injunction to stop the congressional action or presidential action. that would have to come from the supreme court. that's the way it ought to be. the constitution was written, there was only one federal court provided for. that was the united states supreme court. any oth court tt is federal in this country owes its life, its jurisdiction, to the u.s.
congress. as some have said, this other applications, we brought them -- in other applications, we brought them into the world and we can take them out. as far as the courts are concerned. we need to do that. we need to take the courts out of the business of making decisions that overrule congressional and presidential ction on refugees. and our national security when it's voed with those refugees. dr. alad aring that perez and steve king, my friend from iowa, set up and held yesterday, very touching stories christiansa seetees,
persecution of -- christians, ya zitis, persecution of jews in the middle east. we heard from people who know what it is to be persecuted by radical islamists. they see how stupid the policies have been in this country. heard from one of our people in homeland security department hat the massive millions and millions of dollars that congress appropriated to be used in countering violent extremism, , that ticulate euphemism we've spent millions on things like teaching quite young school choirs, muslim songs.
that's why one of the reasons, one of the contributing factors the senseless orlando killings, san bernardino killings, boston marathon killings. a contributing factor is that we have wasted millions and millions of dollars, maybe billions, on outreach programs that should not necessarily be the role of some parts of our law enforcement. when i challenged the f.b.i. director mueller that they had not even gone to the mosque where sarnyeave went to find out if -- where tsarnaev went to find out if his pattern had changed, behavior had changed,
was he memorizing more and more scripture than he ever had? we often hear after the shootings take place, these killings, bombings, well, he was becoming more and more religious. well, that can be an indication that somebody has become radicalized. there are a number of factors. kim jensen, the f.b.i., prepared 700 pages or so training people how to spot radical islamists, he had his 700 pages purged from training materials for a long period of time until finally they realized somebody really needs to know what radical islam. is they allowed the -- some of the training materials to be used again. maybe all of them. but only for a limited number of f.b.i. agents, as i understand
it. removedaterial that was from the purge, or during the purge of our state department, homeland security department, intelligence departments, agencies, during the purge of their training materials, agents what our federal need to know in order to be able to spot if somebody is no longer a peace-loving muslim but now has been radicalized and wants to kill american infidels. there are things that can be spotted if you know what to look for. and we have people that know how to train for those things. bill haney with homeland security knew and because he was able, with his scientific methodology of finding the
connections between radical slamists, as we've heard publicly, he had identified 800, maybe, who may be terrorists, have terrorist ties than i -- and they reviewed 400 and nearly every one of them ended up being name as a -- on theerrorist watch list. but the other 4u00 were not ever ever analyzed and don't know how many of those potential terrorists may kill americans someday, if they haven't already. although secretary napolitano said, we get pinged and connect the dots. secretary, as
someone was eliminating the dots, dots representing ties. they wiped them out. they erased them. phil hainey saw it while it was happening and captured much what was being deleted to allow us to know who in the united states has terrorist ties under president obama, our ability to identify our enemy was greatly weakened. and now we have judges that will put us even further at risk. but you see it repeatedly through history, when a nation's leaders begin to think they are
so wise, so above the fray that they refuse to recognize a direct threat to the nation, then the nation -- it speeds up its trip to that dust bin of history. isd my continued hope and prayer hat this administration will rersth slide. i know there are many that say that you have a cycle whether it was greece, rome, other pursue s where they freedom. they have some freedom, they begin to lose freedom, they fall under a dictatorship, totalitarian regime and then the cycle goes on. but my reading of history leads
me to believe perhaps it's more like -- can be like bell-shaped curves where you go up, create more and more freedoms, have periods where you lose freedoms, but if you have a generation or two that stands up and recaptures those freedoms, you could have another bell-shaped curve and doesn't have to be a cycle where you lose completely your freedom. but where we are headed, this will happen. i was hearing from my friend, secretary tom price, yesterday, hat there are 76,000 employees in health and human services. and we're not talking about people that even put band-aids n those who need medical care. we are talking mainly about bureaucrats.
one of the things that contributed so mightily to the increased costs of health care, so many more bureaucrats were being hired, had to be hired. more and more regulations. i.r.s. agents by the thousandses that had to be hired in order to implement obamacare. that actually caused problems with people's health, ulcers at least. this nation is at risk. we have gotten a reprieve, a chance to catch our breath, restore freedom. as i've said before, those who have read "1984" by george orwell. the main thing he got wrong was the date.
eyes in our w have home that are staring at us and stare at us with our computers and our own smartphones and , ithing the movie of "1984" picture. s eye like a but it really is these days, computer screens, smartphone screens, the government can watch any time it wants. we were assured that the government would not be watching like that unless they followed the law or got a fisa court warrant, but edward snowden showed that those of us who -- through testimony and heard statements from people in
authority what they would do and ,ot do, then proven to be false that became clear to me when i saw the affidavit seeking a warrant for verizon's -- all of their data on all of their customers, all their calls, all the information. the 4th amendment says it has to be with particularity. you have to be specific what it is you are seeking, make sure that you have probable cause and that there is evidence to show that that's being south and you get the warrant. that's the way i reviewed applications for warrants repeatedly when i was a judge. but not anymore. oh, no. guy comes in, swears to a fisa court judge that at one time i had great trust in -- because we
were assured, these were nominated, confirmed federal judges, they would never violate the constitution. well, we found o that's not ue. they became a rubber stamp. so the particularity in the affidavit we saw was, we need all the information on all the customers verizon has and the fisa judge, supposedly out there to protect americans' private information, said, oh, well that's particular enough. you want all the numbers, all the information. ok. here's the order. here's the warrant. verizon, turn over thing -- everything on the numbers you have. so much for protection of our rights by the fisa court. we now know we are not protected
by the fisa court. we can't trust the fisa court. and as i said in our hearing -- well, i less have said it publicly -- unless our intelligence agencies produce the culprits who violated the law and did not follow the law in masking the name, minimizing the transcripts, unless our intelligence agencies can root out the people that have been violating the law, i will vote against the re-authorization of 702. i know they say we need all this power to keep us safe, but we have competing interests here. on the one hand, we have a government that yearns to be bigger and bigger and know more and more until it knows
everything about everybody. and on the other hand, we have people wanting to be safe and wanting their government to protect them. so there has to be a balance. but when government officials can get every bit of information about your private life, then . y do we even need a congress you got bureaucrats making your decisions and know all about you. might as well let them make decisions about your personal life. so we're living in a dangerous time. but the judges have got to be reined and i hope my colleagues will join us many restricting the ability of the district, circuit court, other than the supreme court, taking up these national security issues involving refugees or
immigrants, because it looks like that's the best thing we can do at this time. the meantime, i do intend review more information these two judges, hawaii and maryland, others who may join hands as they jump off the cliff. seems if their conduct to be sufficient -- bad conduct to require their removal from office. and i know this will be looked at as a political thing, but it is not. we're talking about the freedoms of every democrat, every republican, everybody's not identified with a party, every american. the judges have overtaken the
constitution. in the name of political , we've ended up apparently according to the information that's coming out, allowing people who happen to be uslim, to have total access to our congressional computer systems. this article from march 15, "conservative review" and the author has done a great deal of digging on this story and seems to have more stories about it. let me touch on the one from march 13. congressional i.t. staffers who were the subject of a criminal investigation into misusing their information had access to emails, confidential files and almost no tracking of what they
did, a former house technology worker said. awan bullied central i.t. to bend the rules for him so there wouldn't be a paper trail about the unusually high permissions he was requesting. and their actions were not logged so members have no way knowing what information they may have taken, the sent tratral .t. employee said. awan ran technology for multiple house democrats and four of his relatives and his brothers, abid and jamal appeared on the payroll of members of congress, collecting in $4 million in funds since 2010. u.s. capitol police named him and his relatives as subjects of a criminal probe on february 2 and banned them from the
complex's computer networks. members of congress have downplayed their access or publicly ignored the issue. and of course, the reason is, no one wants to be seen as a racist -- being islam is not a race. it's a religion and for some it's not only a religion, it's a form of government. that some, fortunately, the minority thinks our replacehe constitution and the article goes , quote, they had access to everything. correspondence, emails, confidential files. if it was stored on the member system, they had access to it. the former house information resources technology worker with
firsthand knowledge of awan's privileges. technology employees who work for members must initially get authority from h.i.r., a component of the house's chief administration officer, which maintains campus-wide technology systems. quote, there are some things like access to house email systems, that were totally controlled by the technicians at h.i.r. in order for certain permissions to be granted, a form was required to be sure there was a paper trail for the requested changes. he was constantly complaining that he had to go through this process and trying to get people to process his access request without the proper forms. some of the permissions he wanted would give him total access to the members' stuff,
unquote. and again, he used the threat of calling someone bigotted because he was muslim if he wanot given the total access that this person now being investigated as a criminal said he needed. it is amazing how many people gave him the full access he wanted without the proper credentials, without the proper investigation, since no one wanted to be called bigotted because he was muslim. i.t. staff can be tracked for every key stroke they make but by comparison, when these guys were granted access to the computer system, there's no oversight or tracking of what they may be doing on the members' system.
they could make a copy of anything on the member's computer system to a thumb drive or have it sent to a private server that they had set up and no one would know. that raises questions about why members are so quick to brush off the seriousness of the investigation. mr. speaker, as you know, we're not hearing a lot of people talk about it. not seeing a bunch of stories about it. the his is critical to ongoing of congress' actions, you can't have privileged communications that allow us to know what's going on in the departments, agencies over which we have oversight. can't be leaking, can't have access to that kind of information. the wrong people know, everybody
we talk to, everything that is said. they know how to fend off and bestome america. they know how to manipulate us. and do so so much easier and better. you don't have to be russian, apparently, to get access to the democratic national committee's emails. i'm still really interested to know if any of these five who didn't have proper background investigations that worked on so many of our democratic friends' computer systems, if they possibly helped set up the democratic national committee's computer system. after being notified by house administration committee, abid was removed from our payroll, this is a quote. we are confident that everything in our office is secure,
unquote. hillary chambers, chief of staff for democratic representative sandra levin of -- sander levin of michigan told the dcnf. multiple house i. timplet workers say it is impossible for member's offices to make that judgment and that capitol police, who are running an investigation that involves cybercrimes and current and potential international fugitives, despite their primary duties being providing physical security, aren't capable of determining what actually occurred either. the capitol police webpage listing their authority, scope of work and expertise does not mention the word computers. a fairfax county, virginia, police report shows that the brothers' stepmother called the police on them in january anda relative said emran has been out of the country attempting to
stored in pakistan in his deceased father's name. relatives say they forced her to sign power of attorney general documents against her will. after naming them as suspects in a criminal investigation, the capitol police have not taken their passports or arrested them. the brothers previously took $100,000 loan from a fugitive wanted by u.s. authorities. dr. al-attar who has fled to iraq and been linked to hezbollah. this gives you a warm, fuzzly -- fuzzy feeling, mr. speaker. we've got people with ties owing hisy to known associates of bella -- hezbollah, a terrorist organization and they're having full access to member's computers. this says imran ran technology for florida rep debbie wasserman schultz who resigned as head of
the democratic national committee after a disastrous email hack blamed on russians and had the password to an ipad used for d.n.c. business. politico described the investigation this way, quote, five house staffers are accused of stealing equipment from members' offices without their knowledge and committing serious, potentially illegal violations on the house i.t. network, unquote. but it later said hill staffers were down playing the information security component, write, quote, sources close to the house investigation said the former staffers, while able to view some member data, did not have access to any classified information, unquote. that description rankled multiple house i.t. workers who told the dcnf those semantics misleadingly made it seem like they didn't have access to extremely sensitive information. classified is a terminology used
by spy agencies and other executive branch agencies not generally congress, with the exception of the intelligence committee. the full email correspondence and hard drives of members of congress are nonetheless sensitive, extremely private, and likely to conta privileged informati of the utmost import. and an email need not deal with national security to open that member to blackmail or extortion. all a rogue i.t. staffer would need to do was threat ton release emails that were politically embarrassing. the central i.t. staffer said any suggestion that the brothers access didn't span the fulgham out of congressional intrigue was silly because they are the ones giving out permissions. quote, when a new member begins they guide them on everything from which computer system to purchase, which constituent management system to go with, and all other related hardware
purchases. they install everything and set up all the accounts and grant all the required permissions and restrictions, the staffer said. in effect, they are given administrative control of the member's computer operations, they then set up a remote access so they can connect from wherever they are and have full access to everything on the member's system. numerous members of congress who employed the suspects wouldn't say whether they'd been fired or what steps they've take ton examine whether their information is safe. spokesmen for a number of members of congress all ignored requests or refused to say. the central i.t. worker said they were ignoring the problem in the hopes that it would go away but their apathy speaks to the problem. unfortunately as rerecent election has shown, security of computer systems on the hill is not really taken seriously.
so we're told now this article rom march 15 says that the capitol police are getting outside help. we will see. the speaker pro tempore: you have five minutes. mr. gohmert spst -- mr. gohmert: in the remaining time i want to address the question of obamacare. wo years ago, when joe biden was vice president, making him president of the senate, there was a compromise. instead of doing complete and full repeal of obamacare as republicans have been promising there was a
compromise, all right, we'll take all but the regulatory authority, those things that actually cause the greatest increase in expense. but it didn't change the fact, mr. speaker that we had made a pledge to america that i didn't help write, but our leaders of the republican party in the house did. and it said because the new health care law kills jobs, raises taxes, increases the cost of health care, we will immediately take action to repeal this law. then it go into some detail about that. then we know we had the better way. speaker ryan, our leadership, current leadership's better way. and this was from june 22, 2016. has the -- the plan begins by
laying out five principles. it begins by repealing obamacare. that's all of it as its first principle. and the last sentence of they have paragraph says, we need a clean start in order to pursue the patient-centered reforms the american people deserve. and that's exactly right. and i was glad that our leadership of our party put that in there. because we needed a full repeal. but two years ago wasn't a complete repeal. more so than what is being done now and we're being told is the new bill. it was more repeal then. but even then, we wanted to do a full repeal but we were told because joe biden would be -- could come over from the white house, come down pennsylvania avenue, and take the presiding officer's seat straight down the hall, that he would likely rule that other part was not in
compliance with the byrd rule. in essence, the byrd rule basically means if something is merely incidental in its effect on the budget, instead of a direct effect on the budget, then it may not be consider -- considered under the procedure that was being used. and that procedure only requires 51 votes. so the thing that everybody knew back then is, if it were republican in the presiding officer's seat, of course. we say all of this especially the part that was taken out, would survive the byrd rule because it's not just an incidental effect on the budget,s the most dramatic effect on the budget of most any bill that congress has ever taken up. dramatic. not incidental, dramatic.
and so now we're told, look, everybody needs to get on board with this new bill, doesn't go as far as the one two years ago, but -- and it leaves all these regulations and things, all that power, 1,400 time thinks secretary apparently is -- says the secretary will make the rules, regulations to impme the bill. but we're it's ok, yo don't have to knock those out because now we have secretary price that can do that. for one thing if he could, then that would mean when the next secretary of health and human services comes along, that's a democrat, put them all back. we hadn't done anything. hadn't accomplished anything. we just had a little breather. but we're also told the prices will likely continue up. there may be a 10% drop of the two to four times the health care costs, health insurance costs at least are increasing.
but since we know it will be a republican in the chair, then the republican in the chair in the senate will be free to do the right thing and say, honestly, truthfully, absolutely, the repeal of all is regulatory mass of mess dramatically going to affect the budget, not incidentally, so it survives the byrd rule. it stays in. there are things that in the new bill that probably won't survive that analysis. that have been added. why don't we do what we promised for seven long years, repeal all of obamacare? we're told there's a second bucket a second stage, where secretary tom price, in whom i've got great faith, because he knows health care , he knows health care law, but he can change those regulations.
ell, we also know that this is going to be take ton court very quickly. d even i as the conservative appellate chief stice thati was at one time, i would probably look at that and say, wait a minute. the law gives you the power to create regulations, to implement the bill. it doesn't give you the power to make regulations that will destroy the bill. so it won't have to be a liberal judge that can knock down regulations. and i remember my late friend justice scalia, not talking about a particular case but talking about the issue of when congress doesn't do something and has a lawsuit to do it instead, justice scalia said if
you guys in congress don't have the guts to stop something you have the power to stop, don't come running over to the supreme court to demand we do it. you do your job, that's not our job. and that's the case with obamacare. it needs to be repealed as mitch mcconnell said, root and branch. and it survives the byrd rule and then we really help america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? the gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. gallego: i'm going to cut directly, the trump ryan health bill is every single promise and enormous tax cut for those who
need it least. first promise that trump made to the american people is that everyone would have health insurance. although the a.c.a. expanded health care, donald trump said he didn't think it provided enough people with coverage. he said and i quote, we are going to have insurance for everybody and i'm not going to leave it to the lower. what does the bill do? according to the congressional budget office, 14 million people would lose coverage next year and 24 million people by 20727. that is outrageous. according to the white house own estimate, people will lose coverage under the trump-ryan bill. the second promise that donald trump made was that health insurance would be cheaper. donald trump said his plan would have much lower deductibles.
secretary tom price said under the bill, nobody will be worse off financially. what does the trump ryan bill actually do? in my home state, my constituents will get hit hard. in 2020, they will receive $3,000 500 less in subsidies than obamacare. meaning they are going to be forced to spend more out of pocket to continue getting care. the trump-ryan bill will stick it to older americans. erodes and the trump bill green lights insurance company to charge 66% more. according to the congressional budget office, a low-income 64-year-old out of pocket costs would increase to $15,000 a year by 2026. if you are an older american and don't like obamacare, let me
tell you this right now, you are going to hate trumpcare. the third promise that donald trump made to the american people is that americans would enjoy better health care. as a candidate, donald trump said obamacare was horrible health care and promised that everybody is going to be taken care of much better than now. what does the trump-ryan bill do? if you are lucky to have health insurance under their plan, it will provide you even worse coverage. the bill doesn't increase the quality of your care and will cut some of the health care services you receive now. in his speech before congress less than three weeks ago, donald trump said, we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted. at a time when opioid kill more people than car accidents, we should be expanding treatment. what does the trump-ryan bill
do? . does the opposite by cutting mental health treatment under medicaid. his fourth promise was that he would not cut medicaid. during the republican presidential primary, he bragged that he was the first and only potential g.o.p. candidate that there would be no cuts to social security, medicare and medicaid. what does the trump-ryan bill? it cuts medicaid more than ever. according to the center on budget and policy priorities, it cuts medicaid funding by $370 billion over 10 years. the bill wi weaken this critical safety net for the working poor. and freezes enrollment in medicaid and unravels the medicaid expansion. if you are worried what this means for you, you should be. donald trump is breaking his promise on medicaid. will he break his promise on
medicare and social security? why is donald trump breaking promise after promise he made on health care. the trump-ryan health care bill takes coverage away, raises deductibles and co-pays and provides worse coverage for those lucky enough to be able to afford it. so what are they up to? this bill does a lot of things poorly, but one thing and only one thing that this bill does incredibly well, it cuts a whole lot of taxes for the rich. this trump-ryan health care bill includes a whopping $600 billion in tax cuts, almost all for the wealthy. the single biftest tax cut in the bill repeals 3.78 percent tax who make more than $250,000. this tax will not put a single dollar back in the pocket of any family who makes less than
$250,000. if you are the top 1/10 of 1% willake $3.75 million, you get $165 tax cut. this is outrageous. it repeals 1% tax on families making over $250,000. again if you are in the top 1/10 1%, you will get an average tax cut of $30,000. if you are in the bottom 90%, average hard-working american, you will get nothing. who are donald trump, paul ryan and house republicans looking out for? if you are out of work in youngstown, it's not you. if you are a struggling farmer in rural alabama, it's not you. if you are working at wal-mart, target or mcdonald's, it's not you. even if you are making a decent
living as a truck driver, it's not you. in an interview on fox news, tucker carlson pointed out that the rich do much better under the bill than working and middle-class people, many who supported him. what did he say in response? oh, i know. donald trump, paul ryan and house republicans are looking for the rich. putting the pinch to you, hard-working americans to give their friends a giant tax break and will take health insurance away. wo ears ago, marco rubio called out donald trump as a con artist. the health care bill is a con on the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields his time back and the gentleman is not to
i want everyone to know that all these noes were potential noes, all yeses. every single person sitting in this room is now a yes and before they met, as they began to meet, they let reporters into that room, in this case the oval office. here's the president with members of the republican study committee. >> we appreciate presidt trump having us into the oval office to talk about health care and the improvements that are being made. the president worked and said bring us your best ideas and these are members of the republican study committee who brought those ideas and worked in a diligent way to get to a yes on the changes the president asked us to make in the bill. with that, iea