tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN November 2, 2017 3:46pm-8:13pm EDT
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 600, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce and the chair and ranking minority member on the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, will
each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert ex-trages you materials on the bill into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. paulsen: i rise in support of h.r. 849, the protecting seniors' access to medicare act this discussion is not new, members. republicans and democrats came together to pass this same bill back in 2015. this year, there's once again strong, bipartisan support, with 45 democratic members and 225 republican co-sponsors. it passed out of the ways and means committee last month with bipartisan support too. this bill will repeal the independent payment advisory board or ipab created in obamacare or the affordable care act. the ipab puts 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of medicare spending with significant unilateral powers to slash payments to providers, forcing them to stop seeing
medicare patients without any accountability, judicial review or transparency. the board's unprecedented authority to alter medicare policy could reduce seen years access to health care and put the government rather than patient at the center of the health care system. putting medicare on a sustainable financial footing is a top priority for all of us here in congress but passing the buck to a handful of unaccountable bureaucrats is not the right approach. last year the medicare truss key's report stated that this was to be the year the ipab's authority to make cuts would be triggered. fortunately, this year's trustees report has given us slightly more time. but next year they can come back and move that date up once again. this is a cloud that will hang over providers and beneficiaries unless we act and pass this bill today. some have stated that this bill does not solve any immediate problem and they've questioned the need to act on the bill today. i believe that our seniors and
our health care providers are a priority. why should we kick the can down the road when we can stop this today? there are letters of support from over 700 bipartisan groups representing patients, employers, hospitals, doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals all voicing strong support for ipab repeal. they believe that the threat of this board is enough to warrant repeal and place the decision making back in the hands of elected members of congress, and i agree. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize. mr. levin: mr. speaker, this is really the question. why in the world are we taking up a bill to terminate a board that does not exist? why in the world are we doing so when premiums are rising? and action should be take ton strengthen them?
why in the world are we passing a bill that would increase the deficit by $17.6 billion, pay for chip, the republicans say, but not this bill. so however you feel about ipab, this is the wrong time and the wrong bill for addressing it. the a.c.a. enrollment period began yesterday. because of actions of the trump administration, consumers across the country face confusion and instability in the market. rather than addressing these urgent issues, we're engaged today in a political exercise to repeal ipab. a board that has no members. under provision that has never taken effect. and is not projected to be triggered before 2021.
according to c.m.f. actuaries. in september, every democratic member of the ways and means committee wrote to chairman brady urging bipartisan action to stabilize the insurance market. but after repeated requests, we never received a response from the chairman. and to date, the house has taken no action on behalf of consumers. in the meanwhile, the trump administration has continued to work to undermine the law and access to health care by, one, cutting out funding for cost-sharing assistance for moderate income enrollees, two, slashing funds to navigators that help consumers enroll in coverage. the biggest navigator in michigan had its funding cut by 90%. shortening the enrollment period. shutting down health care.gov on weekends. and pr posing to chip away at tissue proposing to chip away at
consume brother teches through executive knee yat. these have contributed to insurers exiting the market and raising premiums. it is nothing less than direct and deliberate sabotage and so instead the republicans today bring up a bill about a board that does not exist and the latest is, it would not until 2021 at the earliest. there are simple actions that we can take today to repair some of the damage and thereby improve the insurance market. senator lamar alexander and patty mur way recently came to a bipartisan agreement that would provide funding for the cost-share regular duckses and outreach and enrollment activities that strengthen the risk pool in the marketplace. unfortunately, as we see today, our republican colleagues continue to ignore these and other important issues while
allowing administration obsessed with repeal of a.c.a. to do so through executive action what could not be done legislatively. what's more, they're bringing to the floor today a bill that the congressional budget office estimates will raise the deficit by $17.5 billion over the next decade. i repeat, raise the deficit by $17.5 billion over the next decade. and this is just a small preview of the coming g.o.p. tax bill. which would increase our nation's debt by $1.5 trillion, according to the republicans' own budget resolution. and whatever happened to the crocodile tears we used to hear from republicans about the deficit? in terms of today's bill, lacking any offset, how about at
least starting to address the staggering cost of prescription drugs, a step that would save both senior citizens and the medicare program money. mr. speaker, the american people need congress to take action to lower their health care costs and to stabilize the markets. hey do not need today an irrelevant political bill such as h.r. 849. if you support real steps to lower health insurance premiums now, vote no on this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. paulsen: let me start by saying that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called on us to work with them over and over again to find common ground, to make fixes in the flaws in obamacare. today we have an opportunity do exactly that.
we should all be joining together. there's bipartisan support in this bill to eliminate this unnecessary and potentially very destructive body, one that i would define as a major flaw in the law. this is exact process we've been asking for, you've been asking for. the bill has been through regular order. we've had countless hearings on this topic. we've actually voted not once, but twice, in past congresses to repeal ipab to keep it from harming access to seen years care. today we're blinging this bill forward, this legislation forward, as a standalone provision, not tied to any other policies, to once and for all allow members to say whether they support or oppose this unaccountable board. mr. speaker, i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, dr. phil roe, with has been a tireless champ for seniors in tennessee and since day one has been working on this legislation to repeat ipab. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. roe: i rise
mr. roe: i rise in support of h.r. 849, a bipartisan bill that repeals two sections of the affordable care act and terminates the ipab once and for all. i want to thank chairman brady and chairman walden. co-sponsor. ad dr. rueezz got more co-sponsors than we ever before including 45 democrats. seeing such strng bipartisan support only makes sense. since we are doing away with ipab has been a bipartisan idea since it was first proposed. in december of 2009, i joined congressman richard neal and 72 other bipartisan members in writing then speaker pelosi expressing our opposition to the ipab's creation.
on the day that the a.c.a. passed the house, i filed legislation to repeal the ipab and received bipartisan support in every congress since. this is about access for seniors. and the ipab was not in the house version of the affordable care act. only the senate sent that back over here. so it was not part of the house to begin with. we got lucky this summer that the medicare trustee's report did not trigger ipab otherwise there would be requirements to cut medicare within a year. these cuts would have been made to provider reimbursements and would eliminate options. peter orszag said this was the greatest creeding of power from the congress to a bureaucracy since the formation of the federal reserve and then stated that the board hasn't been
formed. means that one person makes these decisions, not the congress. the medicare recipients can't come to their elected official and effect changes in this ipab board if it's enacted and it will be. one of the major concerns we hear today, this estimate will cost over $17 billion. the c.b.o. describes its estimates as extremely uncertain because it's certain that ipab will not be triggered. this is the dilemma we are in with the sustainable growth rate. medicare says to doctors, you can provide care but if you provide too much, we'll ket your payments. havoc.h s.g.r. wreaked we can't put providers through this again and spent months and years getting that corrected knowing that members were concern about the offsets. we have a bill on the floor that all of our co-sponsors can
support. i look forward to seeing all 2 0 voting in favor of passage in order to preserve medicare for our nation's seniors. we have a chance to send a strong support that seniors don't want to see it cut by a body of 15 unaccountable bureaucrats or the secretary of h.h.s. if the board is not impaneled. if there are hard decisions to be made, congress should not abdicate that duty to people who have no oversight or legal recourse. i urge my colleagues to support final passage of this bill and maintain medicare services for our nation's seniors, because this is truly a bipartisan issue that will affect all seniors equally. i yield back the balance of my time. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. r. levin: i yield five minutes
the gentleman from wisconsin. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition of the repeal of the independent payment advisory board. mr. kind: this is another classic example of a solution in search of a problem. all the things that we should be working on in congress in a bipartisan fashion to improve and to fix the problems that exist within our health care system. we have legislation on the floor before us today that calls for the repeal of a nonexistent commission based on nonexist nt spending cuts proposed for medicare and nonexistent of rate in increasing spending which will add $17.5 billion over the next 10 years because this bill isn't paid for. and they are coming forward with this legislation to add another $18 billion on the debt on the same day they release a tax bill
that calls for $1.5 trillion worth of deficit spending because the tax bill hasn't been offset. at some point and some time, we have to take a bipartisan stand on fiscal responsibility in this place again, because it's not happening today. instead, we should be working on short-term practical solutions to stabilize and bring more certainty to the health insurance marketplace. in light of what the administration is doing to completely undermine the marketplace today. we ought to be working on reform proposals that will accomplish medical homes and value-based purchasing and bundling arrangements and different alternative payment models to get us to a system of value and quality and outcomes and away from the fee for service, payment for the value of service regardless of results. let's be honest, the real cost
driver in our federal budget has been health care costs because we have an aging population. that's the work we should be working on together is the delivery system reform and payment reform and aligning the incentives and telling our health care providers you will be compensated on good results, not on how much you do. there's a lot within the affordable care act giving our providers the very tools in order to accomplish that. and we ought to be enhancing that today. instead, we are wasting time on a commission accord to c.m.s. says at the very earliest it might be comprised in 2021. but even then, it warns us with the mission we have given it, congress, you need to deal with and come back with recommendations and up to us toe make corrective action at that time. all this talk about unelected bureaucrats and making these
decisions belies what the act calls for. this was another important cost containment tool that was put into the affordable care act to restrain the growth of health care spending. we need more of those type of ideas rather than efforts today to remove those tools and then see unbrideled health care spending in the future. what is disturbing. i know there is a lot of common ground in this area and the american people wouldn't know it with this ping pong ball going back and forth and the chaos and confusion it's causing. that's unfortunate. instead today we ought to first ake steps to stabilize the insurance exchanges rather than to limit the enrollment which started yesterday. they have cut by 90% funding for marketing of the exchanges and
cut by 50% funding for our navigateors back home to help people get affordable care and ended the cost sharing payments which increases the health care of everyone else. and the other segment of the population we should be focused on is that 5% or 6% of the population that are in the individual market that don't qualify for premium tax credits, they are getting hammered and you would think that would be bipartisan commonality to provide relief to individuals who are in the individual market expressing these private premiums. and instead nothing is being done on that front. my friend from michigan we should be having hearings about the cost of prescription drugs in the committee. that is one of the main cost ivers and there is deafening
ears in the handful of congress. president trump promised during the course of his campaign to try to take some action in a bipartisan to address the drug costs. may i have one additional minute? mr. levin: additional minute. mr. kind: it was an initiative that the president was interested in trying to address. again, yet, nothing is being done. this legislation, much to do about nothing because there is nothing pending and nothing would be pending according to c.m.s. until 2021. we are wasting time and opportunity to address the real problems in finding the real fixes that are needed in the health care system. and i'm confident there is bipartisan overlap having worked with my colleagues on the committee and across the aisle on many of these measures that i mentioned here today. i encourage my colleagues to vote no and it keeps an eye on
riseicing costs, congress needs to take future action if the rate of growth starts spinning out of control. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. paulsen: i recognize mr. rothfus who is a tireless advocate on these issues. mr. rothfus: i rise today in strong support of h.r. 849 the protecting seniors access to medicare act. the ipab was created under the a.c.a. and consists of a panel of 15 unelected unaccountable bureaucrats with the authority to single hand he hadly cut medicare spending. ipab reveals the truth that government rather than the patient is at the center of our nation's health care policy and repealing ipab, we begin to help get rid of the notion that the
mentality that washington knows best when it comes to our health care. it's imperative we act now before we put nominees on the board and access to care is decreased or denied. my constituents rely on these funds. i'm proud to seekonk working together in a bipartisan manner on this commonsense legislation to keep patients and doctors in control of their decisions and preserve medicare for future seniors. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: reserve. mr. paulsen: i would like to give one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, a member of our leadership team. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. messer: i thank the gentleman from from minnesota. hoosiers continue to suffer under the negative impacts of obamacare each and every day.
despite the house promising to repeal, the senate has failed to act. we have the opportunity today to make a difference to protect our seniors and get rid of one of obamacare's the independent advisory board. this consists of 15 unaccountable bureaucrats to rash shon health care. for individual patients, this board has the power to make your health care decisions for you. and that's just not fair. this bill will change that. it disbands the board and ensures our seniors continue to have access to their health care that they need. i urge my colleagues to roll back this dangerous obamacare provision and support this commonsense legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is
recognized. mr. paulsen: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen, who is an original co-sponsor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. allen: i urge my colleagues to support the protecting access to medicare act. how many of you know what the independent payment advisory board is, also known as the ipab? how many know who serves on the board? i would venture to say that not many people known the 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who have unilateral authority to cut medicare spending. the democrats created the ipab providing them with unprecedented power to alter medicare policy. ultimately having the chance to reduce access to health care and put the government at the center of our health care system with zero accountability or
transparency. my constituents deserve better and americans across this nation deserve better. a vote for this legislation is a vote to give seniors more control over their health care decisions. i urge urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back. and i yield back. mr. levin: i reserve unless you are ready to close. mr. paulsen: we have no more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. . mr. levin: i want to say this to my colleagues whom i respect that signed onto this bill, many of them early on this year. there have been three changes of circumstance. first, right then it appeared hat ipab might come into existence in 2017. now, the actuary has made clear that will not happen under
these circumstances until 2021. secondly, since the bill was introduced, circumstances have changed. the administration has taken steps to undercut health care for americans. and so because of cost sharing and other issues, premiums have been rising. that's a second change of circumstance why this is the wrong bill at the wrong time. and third, the last time it came up, it was paid for. it was paid for. in the committee on ways and means, when we raised this issue, we were told as always, well, we don't have to pay for it in the committee, but it can be paid for on the floor. this is totally unpaid for. zero. no effort to pay for it. and it would add $17.5 billion
to the national debt. already at its record level. with now the threat of $1.5 trillion more. so i really urge, no matter what were the circumstances when you signed on, in almost every case they've changed. and so there is such good reason why this is the wrong bill at the wrong time. and i think to vote for this is really the wrong vote. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker and members, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have supported this bill in the ways and means committee in regular order last month, and in a prior vote back in 2015. rather than take control away from the american people and from our seniors, we should be expanding choice, expanding
access, and expanding flexibility and competition in medicare, and we can start that right now today by passing this legislation to terminate the ipab once and for all. my colleagues also on the other side of the aisle have called on us to work with them to find common ground to fix those flaws within the affordable care act. well, today with this vote, we have an opportunity to do just that, to join together, to eliminate this unnecessary and potentially destructive provision. certainly it's a major flaw in the law. and pass this bipartisan legislation. this is crucial expanding and accessing high quality care to our seniors and make sure that medicare payment policy is not dictated to us and our constituents by a board of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. i want to thank dr. roe. i want to thank ruiz on the other side of the aisle -- dr.
raouxies on -- dr. ruiz on the other side of the aisle. i strongly urge my colleagues to pass this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, ach will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. guthrie: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. guthrie: i rise in support f h.r. 849, the protecting seniors' access of medicare act of 2017. the independent payment advisory board was created in the affordable care act to reduce per capita rate growth
to medicare spending. if a spending target has exceeded cuts must be made, and the h.h.s. secretary is directed to implement the proposals made by this 15-person board automatically unless congress acts to alter the proposal or discontinue automatic implementation of proposals. this board has not yet been formed but the secretary is required to come up with required reductions instead. medicare is crucial for our nation's seniors to see their doctors and the program's viability must be protected. there is no question that medicare must be modernized in order to continue for future generations, but ipab is not the right approach and a bipartisan group of my colleagues agrees that ipab is not the answer to fixing medicaid's shortfalls. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. ruiz. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. ruiz: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in strong support of my bill, the bipartisan protecting seniors' access of medicare act of 2017. i was proud to introduce this commonsense bipartisan bill with my friend on the other side of the aisle, congressman dr. phil roe. thank you, dr. roe and your staff, for your many years of hard work and advocacy on this issue. i'm pleased our offices were able to work closely on this bill, building a strong bipartisan working relationship. h.r. 849 eliminates the well-intentioned but misguided independent payment advisory board, or ipab, that was created under the affordable care act. everyone can agree that we need to address the high cost of health care and strengthen the solvency of medicare. however. the ipab approach has an unelected panel with no accountability. our constituents must be able
to hold elected officials accountable for decisions made regarding changes to medicare regardless on who's in power. what's more, if the board fails to act, the health and human services secretary, whether democrat or republican, would be able to single handedly make cuts to medicare. the growth rate to trigger ipab has never been reached and the board has not yet been appointed. however, we must act now to ensure that never happens. again, we can all agree that we must address the high cost of medicare but we should this by addressing the overall long-term cost of health care. i am pleased we are working on this. i encourage my colleagues to join me in passing this commonsense, bipartisan improvement to the affordable care act and work together to protect and strengthen medicare for our nation's seniors. i urge my colleagues to vote
yes, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield three minutes to the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, my good friend from oregon, mr. walden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank mr. guthrie from kentucky. he's done a terrific job on the energy and commerce committee on many fronts improving health care, especially for seniors and low-income americans, among others. mr. speaker, today i rise in strong support of h.r. 849. this is the protecting seen ors' access to medicare act of 2017. this will repeal the independent payment advisory board, ipab. the purpose of ipab is to reduce medicare's per capita growth rate. while certainly that's important work, this is not the solution. you see, the ipab, created by the affordable care act, would be composed of 15 unelected
bureaucrats authorized to unilaterally make decisions regarding medicare's finances whether that be through draconian cuts, to provider payments, reduce medicare spending if the program exceeds an arbitrary growth rate target. in other words, they can do just about anything they want to cut medicare, and we don't have much of a say in it. these changes would automatically go into effect and the secretary of health and human services would be forced to implement these reductions should ipab be triggered unless congress pass legislation that would achieve the same amount of savings. it's also worth noting that current law doesn't require a public comment period before ipab issues their recommendations, so there would be no chance for the public to weigh in. individuals and providers would have no recourse against the board. can you imagine that? as decisions are not subject to appeal or judicial review. this is hardly a model of
transparency and accountability. while ipab hasn't been instituted yet, the threat of -- constituted yet, the threat of this remains. i cannot support ipab because potential cuts to providers, doctors, health care facilities would increase out-of-pocket costs for seniors and potentially limit the availability of medical services restricting seniors' access to care, particularly in our rural areas. congress can and should act now to prevent ipab and prevent the unelected bureaucrats from ever being at the helm of our country's medicare program. i know the importance of this program. it took very good care of my parents, my wife's parents and others i know. we should reject the premise of surrendering our oversight to preserve and protect the medicare program to a board that with little accountability. we know how to make sure seniors have an affordable, sound, relyable health care
system. we have to create competition at every turn in the health care system and look for models that work like medicare part b. i reserve the balance of my time. mr. guthrie: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 849, the ipab repeal. mr. chairman, republicans have spent the last nine months trying to repeal the affordable care act, and they failed. instead of working with democrats to improve the a.c.a., they will stop at nothing to repeal the law piece by peel peast. the republicans' partisan -- law piece by piece. the republicans' part stan bill is paid for on the back of medicaid recipients, medicare, low and middle-income families with the affordable care act health coverage and the prevention fund. but, yet they will not bother to pay for the $17.5 billion it will cost to repeal ipab. ipab was enacted as backstop to
the other cost saving and other quality improving efforts in the a.c.a. such as accountable care organizations, patient centered care models like medical homes, value-based purchasing. because of the affordable care act and these programs, medicare spending growth has slowed and medicare solvency has been extended. according to the c.m.s. actuary, ipab will not be triggered until 2021 so the timing of today's repeal is premature and politically motivated. ipab repeal will increase the deficit by $17.5 billion, and this is fiscally irresponsible of republicans, especially as they prepare to announce a tax package that will saddle our country with $1.5 trillion of debt in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations. andi pab repeal is not about helping -- and ipab repeal is not about helping seniors. ipab is prohibited from sending
recommendations to congress that would harm seniors by increasing their out-of-pocket costs or cutting their benefits. in fact, it's the republican a.c.a. repeal efforts that will cut nearly $1 trillion from medicaid and medicare, harming seniors and other vulnerable americans, which would have truly led to the rationing of health care. and so for all these reasons, i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 849, the ipab repeal, and i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: i'd like to yield two minutes to my friend from florida, member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. bilirakis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you. i appreciate it, my friend from kentucky. he does a great job on the energy and commerce committee and the health care subcommittee, vice chairman. i rise in support of the protecting seniors' access to medicare act. i am a proud co-sponsor of this bill, and i'm glad we're passing this much-needed bill.
the affordable care act created the independent payment advisory board. this board of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats was charged with a single goal of cutting medicare payments to physicians and hospitals. we can't let that happen. this poorly conceived scheme could force physicians to access the medicare program or limit their medicare patients. we can't let that happen. this would create an access to care problem for the 170,000 medicare beneficiaries in my district. when i'm back in the district talking to seniors, senior advocates, local physicians, the hospitals, everyone, practically everyone has raised the concerns with this board. this is a commonsense repeal bill, and they say it hasn't been implemented yet, hasn't been set up yet. ok. well, let's get rid of it. most people don't want it. so, again, we need to pass this
particular bill. we need to abolish this bad idea. thank you. i appreciate it and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. guthrie: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from vermont, a member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. welch: i thank -- pardon me. i thank the issue here about medicare, that is one where there is universal support in this body passedt program that was by bipartisan vote. it's a lifeline for many of our seniors, for all of our seniors. and it's a program where everybody pays, everybody benefits and gives all of us confidence that our parents or ourselves will have access to good health care. but we have a challenge. the cost of health care in this
country is far too expensive. and it is for a variety of reasons that our country spends twice as much on health care as most industrialized countries in the rest of the world and we don't get better results for that. so the challenge for us if we want to save health care, particularly medicare is to start focusing on reforms that bring the cost of health care down and don't compromise quality. the affordable care act extended access to health care for millions of americans but it also included some steps that began bending the cost curve. the rate of growth in the medicare spending has started to come down under the affordable care act. it was patient-centered programs. it was accountable care organizations. it was value-based payment systems. these things were for the first time congress talked about not
just extending access but reform payment systems so we could get the benefit of a more efficient system. ipab is simply one of the potential tools that would be used in order to present to congress recommendations. and unlike what mr. walden said, it would be the final say of congress whether we wanted to approve or not of any recommendation by ipab. now here's the difference in how we are approaching health care. many in this body on the republican side have focused on the cost of health care, its contribution to the debt. t the policy proposal -- but the policy proposal in the form of repealing the affordable care act is a way of reducing the cost of health care was to take health care away from 24 million
americans. that's what that bill did. that is one way to control the cost of health care. have people go without. it's the wrong way. we all know that. we have got to bite the bullet here and start addressing the fact that we spend too much. some of it is wasteful procedures and some of it is gaming the system and some of it is the incredible maneuvers by drug companies. i want to give this example. as an indication how right before our eyes, bad things that are happening that we are allowing to occur. a very good drug, the company's patent was expiring, and it had exclusive marketing and selling rights. ncredibly like $70,000 for a supply.
amgen had a biosimilar that was going to be marketed and you had the benefit of competition and the price would go down. they made a deal. we don't know how much they paid, but it's not going to bring its generic ng effect to market until 2023. and this is part of their agreement. they are going to sell their biosimilar product in europe now. europe is going -- two more minutes. mr. pallone: i yield the gentleman two more minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: europe is going to get the benefit of that lower price and united states is not. and my question to my colleagues, it's just not about ipab but it's about let's get real on drug prices and get real on the fee for services as
opposed to value-based system, let's get real on cracking down on medicare fraud and get real on focusing on the cost side where all of us acknowledge bad things are happening and this fear of these quote unelected bureaucrats where it's 15 people where at the end of the day whatever recommendation they want to make to us forces us to make a hard decision whether it's a good recommendation or bad recommendation. we are in charge. this is going to be rammed down our throat. start looking where the money is. rip off drug prices, excessive procedures that actually create medical risk. so, mr. speaker, we do have a challenge of health care costs in this country, but the focus has to be on improving the delivery system. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: i reeled two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. costello. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in strong support of h.r. 84 protecting seniors access to medicare act. this bipartisan legislation . uld bring an end to the ipab since its creation, the ipab has promised to put 15 unelected bureaucrats at the center of the health care center delivery model. not only would it shift health care away from patients and physicians but would empower this panel with the unilateral ability to make arbitrary cuts to medicare. without proper oversight and zero accountability to the very seniors and beneficiaries whose health care access they would affect, mr. speaker, it's time
to end this unrealistic, unreasonable and unpopular one size fits all with respect to health care delivery. it was the wrong approach from the start and today's vote will end to this dangerous power grab once and for all. i want to thank all those involved and i encounseling my colleagues to support this important bipartisan effort. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. pallone: if you are prepared to close, i'm prepared as well. let's just ask the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from from new jersey has 5 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from kentucky has 8 1/2 minutes. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i can't help but put what's happening today in terms of the republicans putting up this bill on ipab and what is
happening tomorrow with the republicans putting up a chip and community helter bill. but collectively, what they are trying to do is what they were not able to do in the first nine months of this session when they sought very hard and pushed very hard to repeal the affordable care act. what's going on here today and tomorrow with ipab and community health centers and chip is essentially an effort to repeal the affordable care act piece by piece in my opinion. so what do we do? we see ipab which is part of the affordable care act. we see the pay-fors for community health centers and chip tomorrow taking away money from the prevention fund for -- from the affordable care act, limiting the grace period when people will lose their insurance that they have under the affordable care act. and this goes along with what's happening with the president as
well. the president has in the last month or so said he is not going to pay the cost sharing subsidies. he has cut back on the outreach so people don't know what's in the affordable care act and cut back when people can sign up and get insurance, in half. the republicans are sabotaging the affordable care act. they couldn't repeal it and now doing whatever they can to sabotage it. and it is ironic or inconsistent, however you want to put it, on the one hand, they are insisting when it comes to kids and community health centers which is a group of people they would be most concerned about, they insist on paying for it from taking money from other health care programs. we are asking to take money from the prevention fund which pays or vaccines and lead poisoning program and opioids prevention program.
this is money that comes from the prevention fund and taking that money and using it to pay for the community health centers and children's health initiative which means that money is lost for those other purposes. with regard to the grace period, they are saying, if you fail to pay your insurance that used to be 90 days, now it is 30 days, which means that you end up with 500,000 or 600,000 people who would lose it. at the same time, with ipab repeal, which we are considering and which costs $17.billion ich has as my colleague as a mechanism to save costs and say we don't have to pay for that, st repeal it and forgo those costs. for all those reasons, mr. speaker, the bottom line is what
the republicans are doing is not fair to the kids, it's not fair to the people who are going to lose their health insurance. and as the last thing, this is going nowhere. one of the reasons democrats have been urging the republicans with regard to the chip and community health centers to work with us on a bipartisan basis because we know if this bill passes today on a partisan vote, then that means it will go to the senate and going to die because there is no reason to believe the senate will take up this partisan bill. this is a huge mistake on the part of the republicans and what they are signalling, they don't care about this, and want to stick around until the end of the year which means the centers and chip program wither on the vine for lack of funds. and that's not fair. it's not fair to the kids or those who use community health centers. i would urge a no vote on the
bill today, the ipab repeal and ask for a no vote tomorrow on the chip and community health centers. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. this ipab effort is bipartisan. we have heard both sides of the aisle support passage of the bill. on the value-based payments which is a long way -- this is the direction we need to go to reign in the costs and make sure we have sustainable programs. ipab's focused sachingse provision would affect the wider health care with many unintended consequences by doubling down and squeezing payment rates with no meaningful eye to how these changes impact long-term incentives. ipab could work to broader
reforms that would base medicare payments on quality and value. we did offset chip and the community health centers and we know the money is going to be spent. we believe the money will be spent wisely and why we are moving forward with these bills. but ipab has not been constituted and it has not spent any money or been charged with finding any savings. the ipab trigger has never been hit. c.b.o. say it will be triggered -- 2025 and 2027. ven the uncertainty of these projections, this authority would be invoked in other years or possibly never at all. the estimate has to assume the level of cuts required by the amount medicare spending exceeds the trigger. c.b.o. has to speculate how
reductions made in any one year would impact the triggers in future years and as the c.b.o. notes in their estimate, the estimate represents a broad range of possible effects. c.b.o. admits they do not know if it will be trying -- triggered. and there are one-sided bets and c.b.o. must speculate possibilities. and in closing, i believe ipab will not be effective providing real solutions for medicare solvency. it contributes little to the proper scrected cost savings needed in medicare but has the potential to hurt seniors' access to care. fundamentally, it is an afront to the legislative branch. the ipab decisions don't come to congress to be approved or disapproved. the ipab decisions -- we can if
we have dollar for dollar replacement but that could be blocked by a minority vote in the senate. so i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 849 to repeal the independent payment advisory board. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 600, the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the clerk: a bill to repeal the provisions of the patient protections providing for the independent payment advisory board. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. . mr. pallone: i ask mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,
the ayes have it. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 307, the nays are 111. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take the speaker's table, the bill h.r. 304, with the senate amendment thereto
and concur in the senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill on the senate amendment. the clerk: h.r. 304, an act to amend the controlled substances act with regard to the provision of emergency medical services. senate amendment, strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following. section 1, short title. this act may be cited as the protecting patient access to emergency medications act of 2017. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the senate amendment be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. is there objection to the original request of the gentleman from north carolina? without objection, the senate amendment is fwreed to and the motion to re-- agreed to and the motion to reconsider slayed on the table. -- is laid on the table. the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 10 u.s.c. 6968-a clause 10
of rule 1 and the order of the house of january 3, 2017, of the following members on the part of the house to the board of visitors to the united tates naval academy. the clerk: mr. gallagher of wisconsin to fill the existing vacancy thereon. mr. cummings of maryland and mr. ruppersberger of maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. he house will be in order. meckmebs, please remove your conversations -- members, please remove your conversations from the house floor. he house will be in order. he house will be in order. the chair will now entertain
requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i rise to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend just for one moment. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members, please remove your conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order. . the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the speaker. i rise today to discuss the importance of life. you know, thomas jefferson famously wrote that every man has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i hold this quote near and deer because we must defend these rights and that's certainly true with the right for life with a baby. i met rachel with faith to action. rachel told me her story how she chose life. her story was truly moving and pulled at the heart strings.
i couldn't help but give her a hug because her story was so meaningful and her efforts are truly saving lives. while rachel visited we talked about the heartbeat bill. it would ensure every unborn child with a heartbeat is protected. we need to do whatever we can to protect life and this bill will allow us to keep us protecting unborn boys and girls. rachel gave me the heartbeat hero award, like many in this house have gotten. mr. rokita: the award is this small token that i am proud to carry because it represents thousands of lives that are being saved. i will always stand up for a baby's right to life and i hope my colleagues will join in supporting h.r. 490, the heartbeat bill legislation. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for
one minute. >> mr. speaker, i stand against republican efforts to give massive tax cuts to the wealthiest citizens and big corporations while robbing the pockets of middle-class families and ransacking medicare and medicaid. ms. frankel: my constituents are worried. just ask marry yanukovych who uses medicare to buy her costly diabetes drugs. or sherry whose husband has alzheimer's and lives in a nursing home paid for by medicaid. americans want a better deal, one that invests in infrastructure and education and inowe vasive research and lowers the cost of things like childcare and prescription drugs. we want better jobs, better pay and a better future, not more giveaways to hedge funds and conglomerates. and i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the hard work and significant impact of numerous nonprofit organizations in bucks county, pennsylvania. recently i had the opportunity to meet with a group of c.e.o.'s from nonprofits across bucks county. these organizations span a range of areas including health and human services, education, arts and humanities and services for our communities' seniors. mr. fitzpatrick: i want to thank potential, inc, the james a. mitchner museum, the david library of the american revolution, the mercer museum castle, ywca and ymca. the productive and frank
conversations facilitated by these organizations is a tribute to both these nonprofit leaders and their members. bucks county is made a better place because of these amazing people we have committed to our nonprofit community. we thank them for giving of their time, their energy and their passion in serving a cause bigger than themselves. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. speaker, today i rise to congratulate a group that i worked with for some time, the dirty city honey bees double dutch team for their big wins at the american double dutch league's 44th
international competition. but tragedy intervened. sadly, on october 28, one of the honey bees passed away. i ask my colleagues to join me in honor and remembrance of the life of jeremiah grant. rry was a student at the ollie school in jersey city, new jersey. he excelled in academics and in the world of competitive jump rope. at only 8 years old, jerry was the youngest member of the honey bees. he was also the only boy on the team and was called prince bee. rry was a winner and his legacy of love will live on in north jersey. bee" continue ce flying high in eternal rest,
and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak in favor of h.r. 3922, the community health and medical professionals improve our nation act. this legislation re-authorizes the children's health insurance program, or chip, as we know it, as well as funding for community health centers in a fiscally responsible manner. these programs have proven to be a valuable asset for many of the people of this country and many of the constituents that i have back home in louisiana that don't qualify for medicaid but still need assistance when accessing affordable health insurance. in louisiana alone, insurance providers are projected that rates will increase substantially next year as health care options continue to dwindle. for that reason many americans are choosing to forgo health care coverage altogether rather than suffer under the weight of the new, increased costs.
in times of high uncertainty in our health care system due to obamacare, this legislation makes meaningful reforms to ensure the most vulnerable among us, our children, remain protected. mr. johnson: the community health center fund has proven to be cratecal resource for louisiana's fourth congressional district by delivering much-needed resources to my health centers. this program in particular is vitally important for the safety and security of our children. republicans in congress have worked tirelessly to draft this legislation to ensure that this bill maintains important safeguards for our children and families and protects their access to critical care. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to express my greatest sorrow for the new yorkers and their families and visitors that were affected by the tragedy in lower manhattan, just two days
ago. mr. espaillat: i offer my sincere condolences to their families members. after this senseless attack, mr. speaker, we cannot wait another -- for another tragedy to pass before we decide to better protect pedestrians, bicyclists especially in areas of high foot traffic. the sidewalks and bike lanes of times square, the financial district, other cities nationwide remain vulnerable. the staff act is a bipartisan bill that i introduced along with my colleague, congressman darren donovan from new york, just this last month and was recently introduced by senator gillibrand. as we saw in barcelona, times square, vehicles are increasingly utilized in terror attacks worldwide. we must prioritize the safety of our constituents first, including the safety of pedestrians and of our community. the staff act will provide for
the installation of boulders in areas of high foot traffic. this attack does not define new york just as no other attack will crush the spirit of our city. we rise above those threats when we continue being a city that embraces people of all cultures and teaches love and respect. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. tenney: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize rachel, a marks woman who was recently awarded the 2017 recommend fire world championship title in the ladies limited division. 15-year-old sophomore, rachel began shooting only two years ago but has developed a deep love and respect for the short. she learned how to shoot at a local program before being -- now rachel can fire six targets
with dead eye accuracy in under three sectsdz. with rachel's success has come -- also come a passion to share her advocacy for gun safety. rachel spends her free time teaching new shooters, including her family and friends, proper firearm safety measures. as rachel grows as a marks woman she continues to grow as a community leader. congratulations on this amazing accomplishment, rachel, and i hope to have the honor of shooting with you in the near future. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to speak on the importance of re-authorizing the children's health insurance program, commonly referred to as chip. mr. mceachin: there are 66,000 children who rely on chip. almost 6,000 of those children
live in my district. they need a clean re-authorization of chip. instead, this week we are expected to vote on a bill that will put my constituents at risk. as reported from committee this new version of chip, the so-called healthy kids act, is loaded with poison pills that would undermine the affordable care act, medicare and medicaid. according to the georgetown university center for children and families, chip with medicaid reduces the rate of children's health coverage to more than 95%. mr. speaker, why tamper with success? i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bring a bill to the floor that re-authorizes chip and supports our constituents. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today house republicans introduced h.r. 1, the tax cuts and jobs act. this day has been a long day
coming. since republicans gained the majority in 2011 there have been numerous congressional hearings and briefings, feedbacks from constituents on what tax reform might look like. mr. rothfus: and even the comprehensive reform bill introduced in the last congress. republicans campaigned on a better way to tax reform and specified areas to reform and we followed that up with a framework document setting forth our principles. today is the culmination of more than six years of work but our work is not done. now members of congress and the public will have the opportunity to study the legislation in detail. when all the dust settles two questions remain. will this put more money in the average american's pocket? will this put america in a much better position in the global economy and break through of years of stagnation with much healthier growth, more jobs and higher income? that should be our focus. encourage everyone visit fairandsimple.gop. i thank the speaker and i yield
back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker. for weeks we have heard that the partisan tax plan, crafted behind closed doors, might include the elimination of the deduction for family, state and local income taxes. today, the rumors became reality. the tax plan announced today would drastically reduce the state and local tax deduction. and let me be as clear as i can be. this proposal is a tax increase on middle-class families, and i oppose it. working people in my state already send more dollars to the federal government in taxes than they receive back in support. for every dollar we send to washington, in connecticut we receive back just 83 cents.
by attacking the state and local deduction, this tax plan would make life even harder for real people in my district. a senior citizen called me to say she might lose her home if this tax deduction is taken away from her. seniors who live on a fixed income shouldn't risk losing their -- a roof over their head just so that congress can cut the corporate tax rate. families who are already struggling to pay their bills, put their kids through college and buy their first home shouldn't have to suffer in order to cut taxes for the wealthiest americans. the president promised that the tax -- the tax returns would help -- the new tax reform would help our middle class and would bring jobs back. it is doing neither. i urge my colleagues to support keeping the state and local tax deduction. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> to address the house for one
minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, jise 1. >> thank you, mr. speaker. here in washington we have -- we are in the major debate. mr. mchenry: the plan unveiled is a tax plan for middle income, middle class families in america. if you're making $59,000, family of four, that is the family in the middle, the median family income in america, you'll receive a $1,200 tax cut as a result of the plan that we unveiled today. that's real money for middle-class families in north carolina. it's real money, maybe not in washington, d.c., but it's real money in western north carolina. we need tax cuts. we need tax simplification. we need economic growth, more american jobs, more competitive environment in america so we can keep jobs here in the united states and not off-shore those jobs. we need middle class families to win. our plan does that and i urge my colleagues to support our efforts.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle released their fiscally irresponsible tax bill. mr. schrader: i'm still reading my way through the 492-pages proposal. but it doesn't take long to notice a huge flaw in the process. the majority's using the partisan budget reconciliation process, a process traditionally reserved for deficit reduction, to add over $1.5 trillion to the deficit. and jam a reckless bill through the house without hearings, study or debate. we don't have to operate that way. let's compare where we were the last time congress reformed the tax code in 1986. to where we are today. when congress last took up this monumental task, it took over two years, four months of public hearings, more than 450 witnesses, 26 days of markup,
and months of debate. this wasn't easy. but what did we get? we got a simplified tax code that did not add to the deficit. and a bill that a broad -- that had broad, bipartisan support in the house and the senate and the support of the american people. mr. speaker, let's work together on a bipartisan basis, let's reform the tax code in a way that helps middle class and does not add to our children's deficit in the future. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> we need a hearing on burn pits immediately. burn pits are used by our military at bases in iraq and afghanistan to eliminate tons of waste, including chemicals and plastics. they cause giant clouds of black smoke containing
carcinogens. thousands of our men and women in our military are exposed to these cancer-causing hazards. i know because my constituent and friend, jennifer kepner, a 39-year-old wife, mother and air force veteran, died from pancreatic cancer two weeks ago. mr. ruiz: her oncologist made the most probable link between her exposure to burn pits while serving in iraq and her pancreatic cancer. congress must act. too many questions remain. are burn pits still being used? what is the d.o.d. and v.a. doing to help veterans who have been exposed? on behalf of jen and all concerned veterans, i, along with republicans and democrats, demand hearings in the armed services and v.a. committees mmediately to get answers. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request.
the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. eddie bernice johnson of texas for the second vote series on november 2, and friday, november 3. and mr. simpson of idaho for today after 4:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2017, is leman from washington, recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority eader. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore:
without objection. jay pharoah -- ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. speaker. today the republicans released their tax plan and unsurprisingly it is a gift-wrapped tax cut to the rich. christmas came early, mr. speaker. from huge corporate tax cuts to the elimination of the alternative minimum tax paid by the wealthiest americans, this tax plan will hurt our economy and prioritize the top earners in our country. but there is one person, maybe a group of people, that are very, very thrilled about this tax plan, mr. speaker. mr. at person is moneybags. here else. mr. moneybags is really going to benefit from this tax plan. and, first of all, the president himself will greatly benefit from the tax plan. it's impossible to know exactly how much, because we still don't have his tax returns. he has refused to release them. and we would really appreciate
and we demand, frankly, that the american people know exactly how much he's going to benefit from this tax plan. mr. speaker, as the vice chair of the house budget committee, i saw firsthand how republicans rammed through a budget bill that paved the way for the massive ryan-mcconnell tax giveaway to the wealthy. frankly, as a new member, i find it an affront to the legislative process, an affront to families across the united states in red and blue states alike, that we did not have hearings on that budget, that we are not going to have hearings on this tax plan, a complete rewrite of the u.s. economy that is going to be pushed through apparently in two weeks or less. we still have no score on this because we just saw the details of a tax plan today. and so the republicans have made this habit of relying on fake logic and faulty assumptions and they did it with health care and the budget and it's safe to assume that that is what we're looking at here.
these cuts do not pay for themselves. and despite the claims that this tax plan is really going to help middle class americans, the reality is that it's going hurt millions of american families, just to fast track tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires and large corporations. and if the republicans are so opposed to so-called government handouts, as we're always told they're called, then why is it that they seem to be more willing to hand out everything we have to the wealthiest people in this nation? now, we're still exploring all of the details of this tax plan that was just released today. but there's no question that this bill is going to make sure that the wealthiest individuals and the largest corporations in this country get a tax cut of millions of dollars. a million if you happen to be in the top tenth of 1%, then bingo, mr. moneybags is going to get $1 million in a tax cut every year.
and consider this. because if this tax bill lines up with the budget resolution, then 80% of the republican tax cut goes to the top 1% by 2027. the average tax cut for the top . in 2027 would be $207,000 for millionaires the cut would be $230,000. and as i said, for the top 1/10 of 1%, get to have $1 million a year. the middle class on the other hand, 42 million middle class households would face a tax increase. and let's not be fooled by this idea that the standard deduction is going up. because let me tell you what that menals. it means that along with the standard deduction going up, you are also getting your credits for individual children taken away. the itemization of that. so if you have a family with several children, as many americans do, you will actually end up probably being able to
deduct less. and let's also be clear, that when you eliminate the deduction for state and -- for property taxes and state and local taxes, then -- and you cut all of the services that are going to be required to be cut, if you're going to pay for this tax cut, then you will end up paying more in your states. both in terms of the salt deduction, but also in terms of all of the increased taxes you're going to have to pay at the local level to fund things like infrastructure and education. so let's be clear that this plan gives a $4 trillion tax cut to the wealthiest 1% and largest corporations, taxes 42 million working families more and borrows millions from the future to give those tax cuts. now last week in the rules committee, i offered an amendment to the republican budget resolution that would have stopped some of the most egregious impacts of the billionaires' budget. my amendment would have said that none of the tax cuts proffered in this plan should
apply to households in that top 1% of income earners. it would have plainly said that the united states is not in the business of giving massive tax cuts to those who are already increditably wealthy. mr. speaker, i talked about some of the millionaires in my district, because i do have some. i'm fortunate to have a good economy in seattle, where we have a $15 million minimum wage, where -- $15 minimum wage, where we have paid family leave for everybody. yet business is still booming. the economy is doing well. we have people who have done well. and they would like to pay their fair share. for decades republicans have prioritized the interests of the corporations and the wealthiest ahead of working class families. and what we are being proposed in this budget, in this tax plan, is exactly what republicans in kansas proposed in 2012. in 2012 a republican governor and republican legislature in kansas passed through the staple thing.
they said, -- same thing. they said, let's make sure that we have tax benefits for these pass-through corporations. by the way, donald trump owns 500 pass-through corporations. he will benefit greatly from this. let's make sure that we reduce the tax rates on the wealthiest. and in doing so, we will make sure that we're investing in the economy. that meant, by the way, all those tax cuts had to be paid for. so a $700 million cut to the kansas state budget, which resulted in schools not being able to operate full-time, resulted in roads being in disrepair, ultimately resulted in kansas' bond ratings going down. and in the end that g.d.p. growth that we were promised, the economic growth that was guaranteed if you were to put the money into the top corporations and the top income earners, that was supposed to somehow trickle down, that growth never came to be. so guess what happened, mr. speaker. the republican legislature in
kansas rolled back those tax cuts. they said that trickle-down thing didn't work. the promises of economic growth didn't work. and ultimately they had to move it back and finally kansas is starting to come out of that by investing in working families. because ultimately i believe, and i think democrats believe, that if you invest in regular folks, if you put the money into working families, you give them a tax cut, and you make sure that they are actually paying less, not more, even if they -- even if you say that you're giving thepping am -- them a deduction, in the end they're paying more in this tax plan, but if you invest the ney there, instead of taking $270 billion that is proposed by repealing the estate tax, which only a tiny portion of people pay, by the way, that estate tax, that 5,400 families are going to get $270 billion in this republican tax plan.
i say, let's take that money and give it to working families instead of to those. now, i think that we have a lot of different option. the congressional progressive caucus has put forward our own budget, a people's budget, with our own tax principles. and the bottom line is we believe in ordinary americans. we believe that if you invest there and you give people the opportunity to work in good jobs, to earn good wages, and to really make sure that they have dignity, respect and can save for the future, can send their kids to college, that ultimately that builds our economy. and so i'm really honored to be doing this special order hour with my good friends and colleagues, and we're going to do a little bit of back and forth here. i want to yield to my friend and colleague, mr. gallego, and ask him to talk a little bit
about what we're hearing. is it true? is it hypocrisy? what do you think about those ebts and deficits? mr. gallego: thank you, my good friend. mr. speaker, we know the republican tax plan is a massive, unconscionable giveaway to millionaires and billionaires. we know that it will blow up the deficit and do nothing to raise wages or create solid, middle class jobs. what we don't know, mr. speaker, is how much the g.o.p. tax proposal will personally benefit donald trump. that's because unlike every other american president, donald trump has refused to disclose his tax returns. trump claimed that he couldn't release his returns throughout the campaign because he was, quote, under audit. mr. speaker, he never provided any concrete proof. and more importantly, the i.r.s. confirmed that being under awed knit no way prohibits someone from making their returns public.
in fact, president nixon did just that while he was in office. more recently, when the economist magazine asked trump about releasing his returns, he said, i don't know. that's a very interesting question. i doubt it. i doubt it. nobody cares about my tax return except for the reporters. oh, at some point i'll release them. maybe i'll release them after i am finished. that's right, mr. speaker. we'll have to wait until trump leaves office just to find out just how much money he made thanks to his own tax reform bill. . and my republican friends are apparently just fine with that. that's a shocker. they don't care if donald trump is using the office to enrich himself and we can't say with certainty how much richer he will get. they don't care about the debt, the deficit. they don't care about making our tax system fairer. literally, the only thing they care about and that truly matters to house republicans is they get to cut taxes for the richest americans, the people
who need the tax cut least of all. mr. speaker, donald trump does not need a tax cut. neither does secretary mnuchin or secretary devos or secretary tillerson or paris hilton but they will get one if republicans have their way. in 2012, paul ryan said, we have a debt crisis, right in front of us, and what brings down great empires past and future is debt. in 2013, paul ryan said, our debt is the biggest threat to this country. we have to tackle this problem before it tackles us. in 2016, donald trump said, i am the king of debt. i love debt. it certainly seems like speaker ryan has come around to president trump's way of thinking. republicans are planning to add $1.5 trillion to our national debt, and they couldn't be happier about it.
here's the simple reality, mr. speaker. republicans only care about deficits when they want to cut spending on programs for the poor, for veterans, elderly or our veteran. republicans only care about debt when they want to slash social security and medicare. republicans only care about that and are only fiscally responsible when there's a democrat in the white house. but the american people are now seeing right through this. they see through this hypocrisy just like they see right through donald trump's excuses about his tax returns. they want us to reject this republican tax plan, and it's about time we started listening to them. thank you and i yield back. ms. jayapal: thank you so much, mr. gallego, for your incredible leadership and, you know, one of the things when we think about this plan, there's really -- it's a three-step plan. number one, transfer wealth. trillions of dollars of wealth in tax cuts from middle-class working families to the top 1%. number two, explode the
deficit, which we know is part of this deal. we're going to explode the deficit. and number three, use that exploding deficit as a way to cut spending. but most of all, i'm not sure that the numbers add up, and so i wanted to ask my good friend from the progressive caucus, mr. ted lieu from -- representative ted lieu from california to just weigh in with your wisdom around what exactly is going on with these numbers and what are we seeing in this budget? does it add up? mr. lieu: thank you, representative jayapal. you know, today is thursday, so first have to ask, why does jared have a security clearance? i diagrees. we will talk about the g.o.p.'s disastrous tax plan and the we know it's a disaster is one simple fact. the math doesn't add up. so if you believe that two plus two equals five, then this tax plan is for you. for the rest of us, it's going to explode the deficit and add
to the federal debt. what does that mean? that means massive cuts to medicare, to medicaid, to other vital programs that protect seniors and all americans who depend on some of these programs in order to survive. now, we can look at this tax plan and we can say, hey, it might give tax breaks to the wealthy that will then trickle down, except in the history of the united states, that kind of trickled down economics has not worked. if you look at how the tax plan is constructed, it really shafts states such as california, new york, new jersey, washington and other states by eliminating the state and local tax deduction. when you do that it causes filers not be able to deduct their state and local taxes. in california, new york, new jersey, washington and other states, it's going to be tax increases to middle-class families. in addition, because of the way
the tax plan is constructed, it has the potential to lower housing prices because it also caps your mortgage interest rate deduction. that's why the national association of home builders came out opposing this plan and they have put out something which is deeply concerning. they're saying this could potentially cause a housing recession. you also have the national federation for independent businesses which represents small businesses across america opposing this plan. why? because it's a big tax giveaway to the ultra-wealthy. if you look at an earlier analysis by "the washington post," they said 80% of this tax plan's benefits will go to the top 1%. if you look at this tax plan, it's going to hurt middle-class americans in order to fund those at the very top, and this is not something we should be doing in our country and i also request the speaker work with democrats on a bipartisan basis. we're not opposed to tax reform. we're opposed to stupid tax reform, and this is just a
really stupid plan that, again, explodes the deficit, adds to our federal debt and whacks states like california, new york and new jersey as well as washington state. so i urge that the republicans work with democrats and come up with a plan that actually helps middle-class americans instead of going after them. with that i yield back to representative jayapal. ms. jayapal: thank you so much, representative lieu. i just want to point out there was a study done out of wharton on the tax plan. it wasn't on this most recent version but i think the majority of the things that are in this are still -- are still true and what they analyzed and what they came out with and said is that the assumption of 3% growth does not make sense. that really what they're looking at is 1.3% to 1.4% ultimately growth, and that it would create a $10 trillion
deficit over time. i believe it was $3 trillion in the first 10 years. i'd have to go back and check that number, but essentially what they're saying is it doesn't work. the person who actually wrote the 1981 tax cut under ronald reagan who was working for jack kemp at the time wrote an op-ed in "the washington post" i believe it was and said, this theory of trickled down economics doesn't work. we were wrong when we did that, when we said that back then, and it's wrong to look at that same idea today. now, mr. lieu, representative lou said democrats are not oppose -- representative lieu said democrats are not opposed to tax reform. we do believe that the tax code could be simpler, fairer so that small businesses and working families and folks who are, you know, who are really investing in the economy are the ones to get the benefits of any tax reform, that we would
close some of the tax loopholes, but unfortunately this is not tax reform. what has been proposed is not tax reform. it is tax giveaways to the wealthiest, and i want us to be very clear about what the majority is trying to do here. they are trying to rewrite the .s. economy with absolutely no hearings. it's frankly outrageous that we would not even have a hearing on a major tax bill that is going to affect every single person in this country. we should have hearings. i don't know what happened to regular order. people talk about regular order, but as a new member that was just elected last year for my first year in congress, i can tell you i have not seen regular order. i sit on the judiciary committee. we don't have hearings in judiciary. the majority of the bills that come to the floor are bills that we have never had an opportunity to have a hearing on, and when you look at this
tax plan, i believe we should be able to have more than two weeks to vote on it. i think every single american should understand what is in the plan and at least have the opportunity to decide whether or not it's beneficial for them. and unfortunately, mr. speaker, i don't think that that's happening. let me just summarize what we think is happening in this current version of the tax proposal that's been put forward. first of all, it is a win for the well-connected and the wealthy. that's what the ryan-mcconnell tax bill is. president trump promised that tax reform would benefit the middle class, not the wealthy. unfortunately, rhetoric does not match reality. instead, this bill that we're looking at now would create a loopholes that they would exploit their own taxes. a version of this loophole was
used by the university of kansas basketball coach bill self to avoid paying more than $125,000 in state taxes in one year alone. and the alternative minimum tax, which we call the a.m.t., which ensures the wealthy pay more of their fair share, is eliminated in the ryan-mcconnell plan. and while little is known about president trump's taxes, we do know that without the a.m.t., the president would have paid $31 million less in taxes in 2005 alone. so you see why mr. money bags over here is so important to this discussion, because that is ultimately who is going to benefit. now, speaker ryan also believes, as i mentioned, that we should give a windfall to the ultra-wealthy by eliminating the estate tax and, again, that estate tax is paid by less than 5,400 families across the nation. and in 2016, not one person
paid the estate tax in seven states. so what happens to middle-class families? because if all these wealthy folks are going to get all the money, then the question is, what happens for middle-class families? because that's really where the attention should be. that was what was promised by donald trump. speaker ryan and the republican establishment have attacked commonsense policies used by millions of middle-class families in order to pay for this tax giveaway for the wealthy. so republicans have taken away the ability to write off your state and local tax bills, forcing millions of families to pay taxes twice on the same dollar earned except for property taxes up to a mere $10,000. that's the cap that they're proposing on property taxes. and americans that are hit with significant medical costs, for example, those that have cancer or a.l.s. or alzheimer's, would lose their ability to write off these costs under the republican plan. and the ryan-mcconnell tax bill
also eliminates deduction for personal casualty losses, a big blow if you're a victim of crime, theft or disaster. and it also excludes -- it eliminates the exclusion for dependent care assistance program which is an incredibly benefit for working families. in the end you just have to ask yourself, that in order to give trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest and biggest corporations, what does that mean for working families? it means working families are going to foot the bill over and over again. and i believe this is a bad deal for middle-class families, for america and for our economy. and one last thing i forgot to mention is that there's actually an incentive. after all of the talk of bringing jobs back to america, there's actually an incentive in this bill to take work and jobs to a tax haven country
because the amount of taxes that you would pay on that is actually lower than the amount of taxes you would pay if you were to start a factory here in iowa or kansas or somewhere in the united states and you were to actually create jobs here, you would have to pay a higher tax rate than if you were to create that same factory in some tax haven country in other parts of the world where you don't have to pay -- you would end up not paying the same amount of taxes. so this is a bad deal for middle-class families. i don't know if my friend, mr. jeffries, would like to speak on it. excellent. i am really thrilled now to turn this over to a member of the progressive caucus, a leader on our judiciary committee, representative hakeem jeffries from new york. i thank my well, good friend and tremendous
colleague on both the house budget committee and the house judiciary committee, representative jayapal, the distinguished gentlelady from the great state of washington, for your tremendous advocacy, for anchoring this congressional progressive caucus special order and for addressing the american people on this critically important issue, so-called tax reform put forth by house republicans today in a manner that is clear-eyed, that's authentic, that is comprehensive and that will hopefully awaken the american people to the notion that this is an attempt by house republicans to do nothing more than to jam tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires down the throats of the american people. now, i represent the eighth congressional district in brooklyn and queens. i'm proud to be a member of the house of representatives.
proud to be from the city of new york. and with generous people in new york city, generous people in new york state. in fact, new york state regularly sends tens of billions of dollars more to the federal government than we get back in return. the state of connecticut seppeds billions of dollars more to the federal government than they get back in return. so does new jersey. so does california. so does illinois. so does pennsylvania. and for decades we've allowed that john rossity to continue to show itself in terms of the fact that we get shortchanged in homeland security dollars, transportation and infrastructure dollars, a whole host of other federal funds that disproportionately make its way to other parts of the country, often to states in the deep south.
we're generous people. but at what point is enough, enough? and today you've crossed the line. by putting a target on the backs of people in new york and new jersey and pennsylvania and illinois and california and several other states, including people who live in places like charleston, south carolina. or other cities. that may have relatively modest state taxes, any at all, but who are taxed at the local level or who pay property taxes. so everyone throughout the united states of america, tens of millions of people are going to be hurt by this republican tax plan. because the limitations on deductibility related to state and local taxes, because of the
draconian limitations on deducting property taxes. because of the limitations placed on middle class homeowners as it relates to the mortgage interest deduction. you can't make this stuff up. the republican tax plan is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. to provide a dwinsd fall to millionaires aened billionaires. the wealthy and to the well off. to special interest corporations. and to hide it in the notion that it's a middle class tax cut. the republican tax plan won't help the middle class. it will hurt the middle class. it's a ponzi scheme. it will undermine medicare and medicaid.
t will impose billions and billions of dollars in additional deficit. it will force your children and grandchildren to shoulder in ximately $1.5 trillion additional debt. in this is all being done order provide massive tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. the overwhelming majority of whom will be the ones who disproportionately benefit from the so-called tax reform plan. yes, it's a ponzi scheme. and why do i say that? because what you're going to hear is that trickle down
economics -- economic theory, supply side economic theory, or they've t word craft come up with, dynamic scoring. will result in a situation where these massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and special interest corporations will somehow magically result in unprecedented economic growth. sounds good. the only problem is that it's a failed, fraudulent, and fake argument. it's a fantasy. hat has no basis in reality. when ronald reagan in 1981 cut taxes for the wealthy and for he well off, we didn't get
unprecedented economic growth. we got massive deficits. when george w. bush cut taxes for the wealthy and for the well ff in 2001 and 2003, we didn't get unprecedented economic growth. we got a great recession. the worst economic crisis since the great depression. when the republican governor of kansas moved forward with what he called the kansas experiment, massively cut taxes for the wealthy and for the well off in kansas, so much so that the wealthiest 300,000 folks from kansas didn't pay a single dollar in taxes at all, the
people of kansas were promised unprecedented economic growth, unprecedented job creation. this is the republican governor of kansas. when he cut taxes, you didn't get unprecedented economic growth. what you got were prison riots, overcrowded classrooms, and crumbling infrastructure. the republican tax plan is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. supply side economics has failed. trickle down economics has failed. dynamic scoring is a fantasy. we would say in brack lynn, don't believe the hype. we will surgically communicate to the american people why the republican tax plan will hurt the middle class, hurt working families, hurt children, hurt senior citizens, hurt those who
aspire to be part of the middle class. and one last point i'd make, i'm shocked that you would put a target on the back of people who are paying state and local taxes . presumably because you think this is a deduction that the american people no longer deserve. but then in your same tax plan, you allow corporations and businesses, wealthy titans of corporate america, who run these companies to continue to deduct state and local taxes on their corporate tax returns. seriously? you don't even pretend to have equitable treatment? oh, i forgot. corporations are people too. this is an extraordinary scheme
that they're going to try to jam down the throats of the american people, but we are here as democrats to make sure that the american people understand, you're being offered a raw deal. we're going to present to you and fight for a better deal for middle class tax cuts, for tax cuts for small businesses. tax cuts for working families. and to make sure that people in america continue to pay their fair share. i thank the distinguished gentlelady from washington for yielding to me. i yield back the balance of my time. ms. jayapal: thank you for laying that out so clearly. i don't know how you feel about the idea that we haven't had a single hearing on this bill. we're hearing that we're going to vote on it in two weeks. what's your ex--- your experience, i'm a new member, i
thought we had regular order, i thought we had debate, i thought the minority got to speak up, maybe we take ideas from both sides. what do you think about the idea that we're going to, they're going to try to ram this thing through in two weeks? mr. jeffries: i think it's a great question, it's deeply troubling. you hear the words "regular order," it's a washington, d.c. phrase but we can translate it for the american people. regular order equals democracy. democracy is being undermined as it relates to the republican tax plan ponzi scheme because they're going to try to jam it down the throats of the american people. not a single meaningful hearing, as was done on a bipartisan basis in 1986. when ronald reagan and tip o'neill got together to reform the tax code in a meaningful way, in a bipartisan way , in a thoughtful way. but unfortunately, regular
order, democracy, is being undermined by this republican-led congress as it relates to this tax code. >> what strikes me is that when you don't have a process and you don't have discussion and debate and you try to jam something through, it means you're trying to hold a -- hide a whole lot. i just want -- ms. jayapal: there's an article in "the washington post" today about winners an losers in the republican tax plan. s the "washington post" saying this big corporations, number one winner. big corporations. american mega businesses would get a substantial tax reduction. that's not just on one level. that's a number of levels. my colleagues over here know that this is the number one plan here. because there is a clear different of opinion you all think if you invest in these big corporations and in the wealthiest individuals, you would rather put your faith into
those folk, rather than middle class families across the country who could actually build our economy. so this bill cuts the top rate that large corporations would have to pay. the biggest one-time drop in the big business tax rate ever. biggest one-time drop in the big business tax rate ever. and on top of that, you get some new tax breaks if you're a corporation, you'd get to low you aror -- lower your bills. what i've seen in the polling is that americans across the country think that corporations are already getting too good of a deal and they should pay their fair share and what millions of struggling families across the country want is for somebody to actually fight for them. somebody to fight for people who are going to work every day, who are doing everything they can, to have an american life that pays them enough money to get a job to put food on the table to send their kids to college, to retire with dignity, a better deal than the raw deal that they're getting right now.
but that's number one winner. the second biggest winner according to "the washington post," the super rich. and that was the estate tax i mentioned. which only benefits 5,500 families across the united states. pay that estate tax. but we'll put hundreds of billions of dollars into repealing the estate tax so 5,400 ,50 -- those families can continue to earn more and more money on the back os of the middle class. and the third, anyone paying the alternative minimum tax. that's donald trurp trump, the biggest part of his tax bill on the one return he release was from the alternative minimum tax. that alternative minimum tax is getting eliminated in this bill to benefit donald trump. it forces those who earn more than $13,000 to calculate their taxes twice. what we see here. oh, there's one more. ey said here, hedge funds,
doctors and lawyers, that's the fourth one they mentioned as the wealthiest hedge fund managers who are going to ultimately get a sizable discount while under the g.o.p. bill, i'm quoting here, high earning, small business owners would pay a tax rate of only 25% on 30% of their business income. the pass through business rate. the reality is that even though there are some small businesses that are pass through entities, most of those small businesses do not get the majority of their income from that pass through -- as pass-through incomes. the only people who benefit from pass-through is hedge fund managers and folks like that. who are the losers? small business owners. the national federation of independent business, which represents 325,000 small businesses, said uh-uh, we're not supporting the g.o.p. bill. why? this is a quote.
it leaves too many small businesses behind. so main street is hurting under this proposal. who else? like you said, people in high tech blue states. so say good-bye to most of the state and local tax deductions from states like california, new jersey, new york, connecticut, my state, my home state of washington is really going to be hurt by this. because we don't have an income tax. we have very high property taxes, we have very high other sales taxes. none of that would be -- property tax according to this plan you'd get a tiny little cap on it of $10,000. and who else is a big loser? the working poor. here's what "the washington post" says. while the bill includes a lot of tax breaks for big businesses and the risk, the bottom 35% of americans do not get any extra benefits. so there's one more loser here which is interesting. it says charities, which the
national council of nonprofits says that charitable deductions, when people, when americans chip in to take care of folks who have been hurt by the disaster, you know, disasters across the country or they contribute to nonprofit or others, those charitable deductions are likely to go down under this bill because interestingly and ironically, the g.o.p., the republicans still enable, and i'm quoting again, the wealthy to continue deducting their charitable giving but most people would not be able to get the tax break because they probably stop itemizing their deductions so you'd lose all of that. the american people i think need to understand what this proposal is and get the word out. mr. jeffries: i appreciate you going through that important list and it can be distilled. the winners of the republican tax plan, the billionaires'
oys' club and the losers are americans. and you are going to hear this, dynamic scoring. sounds great. trickle-down economics. i figured out that trickle-down economics means for the middle class, you may get a trickle but guaranteed to stay down. because there's no evidence, no evidence from the reagan experiment, no evidence from the bush experiment, nor evidence from the brownback experience in kansas, no evidence that if you cut taxes for the wealthy or well off for special interest corporations, whether you do it directly or through pass-through entities, when you cut those taxes, it results in strong economic growth. in fact, our history tells us precisely the opposite.
bill clinton raised the top tax .ate on high-income tax earners did we suffer from a recession as a result of increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires so they would pay their fair share. no. unprecedented economic growth, jobs. ion-plus and bill clinton comes into town and we had a balanced budget, what did we do? deficits don't matter according to the bush administration, we are going to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes on millionaires and billionaires because of supply-side economics. lower the tax rate from 39.6% to
35%. what happened? we lost more than 500,000 jobs in eight years of the bush presidency. barack obama comes into town. and all of these doom and gloom projections from my good friends on the other side in terms of what was going to happen, he campaigns on millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share raises the top tax rate 12 million 39.6%, jobs created during the obama presidency. i say the republican tax plan is nothing more than a ponzi scheme sed on a phony theory of trickle-down economics that has no basis in reality. and i thank the distinguished
gentlelady from washington for yielding such time and being so generous and thoughtful in her discussions. >> i thank the gentleman from new york. i would draw your attention to who is the real big winner here. it's mr. moneybags and you have money in bags, millions of dollars, if you are a large corporation, if you are a billionaire, you are going to benefit from this plan. and you know who is going to pay for that is middle-class working families across the country who are going to see their taxes go up, going to see their services cut, who are going to be part of the plan that has three parts. number one part of the republican plan is number one, transfer trillions of dollar to go to the wealthiest in the country who don't need two,
explode the deficit. there is no way to pay for it. and number three, use the exploding deficit as an opportunity to cut spending even more, raise raid social security, raid medicare and medicaid. this is part of the budget that was passed last week by republicans. and there were 20 republicans that voted against that budget and i congratulate them for their courage. it was a close vote. if we had gotten a couple more, we would have been able to defeat that budget and at least require a more thoughtful process for how we move forward on tax reform. because part of what that are vote did is allow this process to move forward with less democracy, with less vetting, with less knowledge for the american people. and i would say the only reason to do this without a real debate to rewrite the american economy,
without a real debate, is if you want to hide who is going to benefit from it. we know who is going to benefit. mr. moneybags, working people are going to suffer. i know that we democrats are absolutely committed to making sure that working families across this country, the vulnerable, the low income, the folks who are struggling every day who are just making it, who feel like this economy is not working for them because it's controlled by corporations, by lobbyists, by folks who are here not working for the american people, but working for their own special interests. we know that americans want that to stop. and unfortunately, this plan does not do that. democrats are going to fight every step of the way. we have our own peoples' budget, we have a real proposal for how to invs in infrastructure, in
the jobs, education, health care, to make sure that americans across the country can -- whether you are in a red state or blue state, whether you are a republican or democrat, whether you are in rural america or urban america, i actually believe we all want the same things, which is we want to be able to put food on the table and put a roof on our heads and want to be able to go to a job and feel dignity about that job. we want to be able to send our kids to college or to higher education so they can get the skills and training they need and not be meyered in student debt, $1.4 trillion of student debt, even larger than credit card debt. we want to retire with dignity. and ultimately, my friend, what we are going to have to do as democrats and i hope there are republicans across the aisle who want the same things and know
this is a bad deal for hid will-class families, working families, for folks who are just struggling to make it, who want to have that better deal, better jobs, better future, we democrats are going to fight for that and i hope we have colleagues on the other side of the aisles that they recognize that constituents will suffer if this plan goes through. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members freezing rain o re from engaging members. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
majority leader. mr. buck: thank you, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. buck: when our constituents showed up on the first tuesday in november, they carry with them the dreams of a better republic. in 2016, american people commissioned us with a task and asked us to fight for jobs and fight to fix health care and roll back regulations and asked us to secure the free world. they asked us to secure our own borders. the house of representatives heard them. we have been busy passing legislation that improves the lives of americans. i congressmen the speaker and his leadership in moving these bills through the house. unfortunately, much of the
house's important work was stalled in the u.s. senate. it's time the senate pass important legislation and restore trust in our republic. because before this week, the house sent 308 bills to the senate that are still stalled in that chamber. this is more than any of the four previous presidential administrations. andford, the house of representatives in the 115th congress has passed more total bills than houses in any of the last four presidential administrations at this point. we are at 394 total bills passed. the dreams of this great republic cannot be realized by the house alone. the senate must hear the people and come together around the bipartisan measures we have been sending to them. as a way of reminding the senate, i would like to recognize members to discuss some of the important bills passed by house of representatives that sit motionless in the u.s. senate.
i'm thankful for my colleagues to talk about the house's uccessful legislative efforts. mr. speaker, i would like to recognize for five minutes, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, to talk about the no sanctuary 2003. minals act, h.r. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from colorado for organizing this special order and recognizing me to address them. i would like to say at the start of this to the folks of the special order had not read the bill they were expounding upon. i want to remind the body of at, mr. speaker and then the sanctuary cities act. we saw what happened in san francisco when the murder of
kate steinly had been deported, he was a seven-time felon and still came back and came to san francisco because he knew that it was a sanctuary city. and if he came across the law, sleeping on the street or additional felonies, they weren't going to notify immigration officials but turn him back loose on the streets. if he was an indigent. kate steinle lies in her grave. her family greefs for her loss. america feels that pain. san francisco is a sanctuary city and the entire state of california has declared a sanctuary state. and i think about the hole in he wall "butch cassidy and the sundance kid," they had a notch
and the bad guys that wanted to get along went in that place and if law enforcement came, they would line up against them and block them from coming to enforce the law. that's what we have got going on. sanctuary cities operating under the idea that because their cities are so full of illegals if they would allow federal enforcement officials to work and cooperate with local law enforcement, those folks might not be in america. i met with some people today in the remembrance project, these are the families who had family members killed by illegal aliens and many of these that killed other americans and killed people here lawfully, many of them had criminal records. but the local jurisdictions decided it wasn't politically correct to cooperate with federal law.
the constitution of the united states is the supreme law of the land and enumerated power that congress establish an immigration policy. and we do that. and we direct that those laws be enforced. the executive branch's law is to do that. and all throughout law enforcement, it has been seamless. i grew up in a law enforcement family. there was no separation or segregation between city police or county sheriff's department and highway patrol and d.c.i. and f.b.i. when there was a crime that was committed, everybody worked together. how is it these cities and now the state of california have carved themselves out as an exception to what has been a timeless, time-honored established cooperation between all levels of law enforcement? the no sanctuary for cities act which was my bill is sitting on
mitch mcconnell's desk saying there will be no more sanctuary cities and funds will be cut off until they get the message. it's about time the justice department moved on the jurisdiction that they have. but we need to help them here in congress and about time that this bill along with sarah's bill and kate's law be moved off of mitch mcconnell's desk. that is a small piece. we need action over in the senate. i thank the gentleman for yielding some time and i encourage and i stand with you, mr. buck. mr. buck: thank you. mr. speaker, when we learned planned parenthood was selling the tissue of aborted children
america was outraged. we have two important pro-life measured that passed the house. h.r. 36 prevents the killing of unborn children developed enough to feel pain passed the house by 237 votes. it's been sitting in the senate for 31 days. h.r. 7 which prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion passed the house by 238 votes. this has been sitting in the senate for 283 days. i'd like to welcome my friend and colleague from georgia, representative jody hice, talk about these two important bills and protecting unborn children. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from georgia. mr. hice: thank you very much, i sincerely appreciate your great leadership in this and i'm grateful to be able to speak on his issue of life. there's been mentioned some 300 plus or minus bills sent to the senate that we have labored here in the house, worked through, negotiated duked it out, so to
speak. sent it over to the senate only to see them sit there and do nothing. in the midst of all of that, at the heart of it all are a couple of very important bills dealing with the issue of life which is important to all of us. i firmly believe and i know my colleagues do as well that all of human life, at every stage of development is worthy of protection and i am deeply honored and proud of the fact that this house has passed a couple of ex-teemly important bills in that regard as the gentleman from colorado just mentioned, h.r. 7, no taxpayer funding for abortion, our friend from new jersey, chris smith, h.r. 36, pain capable unborn child protection act by trent franks of arizona. these are fantastic bills. one basically says that the american taxpayer should not be footing the bill to end the life of unborn children. here it's been sitting for over
00 days in the senate without even a debate. the other says that after 20 weeks, when an unborn child is capable of feeling pain, we're not going to abort that child in the midst of a period of time where pain is absolutely, scientifically proven to be felt. again that bill is sitting across the way in the senate chamber and they've not done anything about it whatsoever. these are important bills. these bills affect lives. and every day that the senate does nothing, lives are being lost. and the question is, where is the senate? we all sit here, we wait, we wait, and we wait. and the time has come that the senate has to take ownership of what the american people elected not only us, but the american people elected them to do and
that is the job, the task, the platform that we all ran on and at the heart of that is the fight, the battle for life. i'm also proud of the fact that the house in our appropriations package defunded planned parenthood. and this is a promise that we immediate the american people after the gruesome discovery of how planned parenthood was selling baby body parts. again, we just -- we recognize that life is a gift from god. it's precious. it's to be protected. it's an inalienable right that we as members of congress have the responsibility to defend those inalienable rights. and obviously without the right to life, there are likewise no right to liberty and certainly no right to the pursuit of happiness. again the question is, where is
the senate on these issues? and it's time. we join together and again i thank my friend for having this special order and calling on the senate to deal with this 60-vote threshold that has become an enormous barrier causing all of us to be dysfunctional in that which the american people sent us here to do. our conservative principles as well as our whole nation rests upon us advancing these things that the american people sent us here to d. at the heart of that is to defend life. so i just join in calling on the senate to deal with this 60-vote rule and move forward on the agenda that we are here to do. again, i just say thank you for your kindness and allowing me to speak on issue, which is important not only to me but all of us. your leadership on joining and us having a united voice. calling our colleagues down the
hallway here to do the job they are called on to do. thank you. mr. buck: i thank my friend from georgia for his passionate defense of life. mr. speaker, americans should be able to go about their daily lives without the fear of nuclear or radiological attack. representative dan donovan's securing cities act helps equip our cities to deal with these dangerous weapon, providing training and protection -- detection resources. on january 31, the royce agreed by voice vote to this commonsense legislation. for some reason the senate has failed in the last 276 days to move this bill. i'm proud to have the bill's sponsor as well as my friend and colleague, representative dan donovan, here to share more about this important legislation and i yield to him such time as e may consume. mr. donovan: i thank my friend and colleague from colorado for yielding to me on such important
issue not only to my district, not only to my city, not only to my state, but to our nation. mr. speaker, i rise this evening to discuss a vital program within the department of homeland security, the securing the city's program. the domestic nuclear detection offices securing the cities program enhances the about of states and localities to detect and prevent terrorist attacks and other high consequence events using nuclear and radiological materials in high-risk, urban areas. through the provisions of training, equipment, and other resources. secureing the cities began as a pilot program in 2006 in the new york city region, including surrounding jurisdictions of new jersey and connecticut. since that time, it has ex-pabbed -- expanded to los angeles, chicago, washington, d.c., and houston.
once the program is fully implemented, it is estimated that it will protect nearly 100 million people nationwide. americans. hailing from new york city and representing staten island and brooklyn, i have seen firsthand the positive impact of the securing the cities program. since 2007, our region has purchased more than 13,000 radiation detectors and trained nearly 20,000 personnel. i have the opportunity to observe an exercise in brooklyn last year and witnessed new york city police department personnel using securing the cities procured equipment to locate and identify hidden radiological sources in a baseball stadium. during the exercise, i spoke with participating officers and received a demonstration of the different types of equipment they deployed.
this program is making a difference in new york city. and i support its continued expansion. that is why i introduced h.r. 655, the securing the cities act of 2017. this bill authorizes the securing the cities program underscoring our commitment to protecting our major cities from catastrophic terrorist attacks. and as we unfortunately saw earlier this week, our major cities, including my hometown of new york city in particular, remain targets for terrorist groups. we have to do everything we can to ensure the department of homeland security and our state and local partners are have -- have the tools they need to address the threats we face. the securing the cities program is one of those tools. i am pleased that the house quickly passed my legislation earlier this year on january 31.
it is now time for the senate to act. i urge the senate to move swiftly to approve h.r. 655, to authorize the securing the cities program and ensure its continued expansion. in april, 2010, president obama stated, quote, the single biggest threat to u.s. security, both short term, mid term, and long term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtain agnew clear weapon. since that time, the f.b.i. has disrupted attempts by smugglers in eastern europe to sell nuclear materials to extremist groups and criminal organizations. the threat has not abated. i am thankful for the work of the domestic nuclear detection office to provide support and guidance to new york city and other urban areas to meet the threats we face. mr. speaker, i urge the senate to quickly take action to pass
the securing the cities act of 2017. again, i thank my colleague for organizing this special order and i yield back the remainder of my time. mr. buck: i thank the gentleman from new york a fellow prosecutor and passionate advocate for these issues. thank you very much. mr. speaker, in the summer of 2015, 32-year-old kate steinle was gunned down by an illegal immigrant who had been deported -- deported five times already. kate's law, introduced by bob affect felons who had committed crimes, been deported and returned to the united states. this bill has been stuck in the senate for 127 days. i'd like to welcome my friend and colleague, representative andy biggs, to talk about h.r.
3004, kate's law, and the importance of securing our nation from violent, illegal felons, and i yield him as much time heas my consume. mr. biggs: i thank my friend from colorado, mr. buck, for yielding. i'm grateful for his leadership. as a conservative and also it's been my honor to serve with him this past year and i appreciate him sharing some time with me tonight as i share several important stories. these are stories of people, real people, not just some people who are distant to us. these are people we know. people just like this. mr. speaker, one early january morning in 2015, a young man named grant runabec began the raveyard shift at a quiktrip convenience store in my district. after his parents dworsd, he took the initiative to work at this convenience store in mesa, arizona, to help his family pay
the bills. he was only 21 years old, had his entire life ahead of him. just before 4:00 a.m., an angry customer walked in, demanded a pack of cigarettes and dumped a handful of change on the store counter. grant started to count the money, but he saw the customer pull a gun out and point it directly at his head. grant tried to immediately hand over the cigarettes in a desperate attempt to save his life but it was too late. the customer shot grant in the face in cold blood, took the cigarettes and casually walked out of the store. grant, his father describes him as being his buddy from the minute he was born and a person that brightened everybody he did not leave the store alive that night. was apolona s name altamirano. he was a criminal alien with a
long histrf of crimes. he was in custody but released while ea waiting deportation proceedings. our government let grant dun when they allowed his killer to walk out of custody and into our streets. he should have remained in custody until he was de-- deported but he was set free and grant was killed due to the government's failure to hold this violent criminal in custky until deported. sadly, grant's story is not unique. many americans are aware of another tragic incident. the case of kate steinle. kate was 3 years old. she was walking along a san francisco pier when an illegal alien shot and killed her. this illegal alien had just been released from prison again. he should have been held until deportation but he in fact had been deported many times previously. and even then, he was set free
only to kill kate steinle. in 2014, mesa, arizona, police offer brandon mendoza was killed in a wrong way crash by an illegal alien driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. and in january, 2016, sara root was murdered by an illegal alien who was drunk and drag racing in omaha, nebraska. in each of these cases, grant and brandon, i am privileged to know their parents, steve and mary ann. these victims are fierce advocates who tirelessly work to make sure these types of tragedies never happen to another family and i'm grateful for their efforts and i believe that we are making significant headway to stop these type of catch and release programs. that allow criminals to remain on our streets. in june of this year we passed
the no sanctuary for criminals act and kate's law. these would end the policies that would stop the tragic deaths. i was pleased to co-author the first bill which included my legislation, grant's law. it is named in honor of grant. all americans can agree that someone who is criminally violent should not be released back on the streets. yet for the obama's administration policy allowed iminally violent illegal criminals to roam our streets. these are preventable. and no sanctuary for criminals act and kate's law. congress has taken action to bring these tragedies to the end
starting with the two bills we passed in june. bob goodlatte ensured these important bills received swift consideration. these two bills, if enacted and enforced, would protect innocent americans to prevent future tragedies like those of kate, brandon and sarah. i hope these bills would receive a swift vote in the senate. that has not happened. i'm still hoping for this vote to take place. i call upon the leadership of the senate to put these bills up for a floor vote. we it owe it to our constituents and to pass policies that will protect them. and yet in a republican-controlled senate, we cannot receive an up or down vote. why is this? this lies in the fat alley
flawed 60-vote rule. it is known as the filibuster. but the senate's tradition is preventing consideration of all legislation passed in the house. look at our current situation. since january, the house has passed over 300 bills including the two immigration enforcement bills i just discussed. these bills will languish until the end of the term in large part due to the filibuster rule. what can be done? the senate can change the rule. the senate must change the rule. 60-vote requirement is not even in the united states constitution. it dates back to 1917 when the senate agreed that debate could cut off with a 2/3 majority vote. when it was too difficult to achieve, the senate reduced it
to 60. the filibuster is a tradition barely a century old, less than half the age of the u.s. constitution. there is a place for rules and traditions, but not when they object instruct the will of the american people. is it a gentleman's honor to dilute our representation in the united states senate? americans would rather that congress pass reasonable laws than to preserve constitutionalized. they want our immigration laws to be enforced. congress is running out of time to keep its promises to the american people. we promised what would happen to kate, brandon and sarah would not happen again. the house has done its duty. it is time for the senate to do
its duty. there are no excuses to allow these bills to die in the senate. i encourage my friends to eliminate the 60-vote rule and consider the two immigration enforcement bills. we must not allow inaction to be the enemy of our sworn responsibilities as representatives of the american people. i thank my friend from colorado. i appreciate the opportunity to say what has been on my mind for some time. and i yield back. mr. buck: i thank my friend from arizona for his insight and appreciate his time. in 2010, president obama and congress passed the dodd-frank legislation that attempted to reform wall street. but instead of fixing the financial industry, dodd-frank regulatory community banks. the financial choice act
sponsored by jeb hensarling replaced dodd-frank with a system that holds wall street accountable and making credit more accessible. the bill passed the house with 2 3 votes and stuck in the senate for 148 days. alex like to introduce mooney to talk about the financial choice act. and i yield him such time as he may consume. mr. mooney: i thank my colleague for leading this special order effort and talk about this issue and the general problem in the senate today of having legislation considered debated and passed. as you mentioned, the senate has already failing to act as we stand here on over 270 house-passed bills. one is very important to the committee on which i serve. i serve on the financial services committee.
senatortion was held by capito and led by jeb hensarling and we work in a bipartisan fashion to bring relief to the american people and give consumers choices on banking products and ability to get a small loan or mortgage for their house. as was mentioned on june 8 of 2017, the u.s. house of representatives passed h.r. 10, the financial choice act by a vote of 233-186. i was very proud to vote for that legislation as i know a lot of my colleagues. the financial choice act, if you are not familiar with the bill after the financial crisis in 2007, democrats held all the chambers and passed sweeping legislation that fundamentally changed the way our economy works for the worse, much more interference in your lives, ability to make loans and
requests for bank loans. basically dodd-frank is the financial services industry what obamacare is to the health care industry. it's a government knows better, one size fits all, federally mandated set of laws that hurt the people that they want to help. we are repealing most of that and going to empower consumers and bring you the choices back. we passed this bill. let me give you one example in the bill. there was something that was designated in the dodd-frank bill called too big to fail. you may remember that term, too big to fail. that's a situation where washington bureaucrats have decided that certain banks, the theory is they are so essential to the global economy. so it takes the ability to fail out of the banks' systems which
makes them more risky. big does not necessarily refer to the size of the economy. so the first bank that was too big to fail was bear stearns and on march 8, the federal reserve ent money to buy the failing investment bank. it was a small bank but very well known. so your tax dollars were used to essentially bail out banks. this bill repeals the financial stability oversight council. it prohibits the use of exchange stabilization funds to bail out banks. most americans don't think their taxpayer dollars should use to bail out banks. this bill would stop that. we passed the bill and sent it
to the senate. we thought they would consider our bill and take the parts they like and maybe change some parts, add some parts, and then we go to a conference committee. one of the biggest travesties i have seen in the political process is the failure to have conference committees in the congress. the house passes all these bills over 300 over there, 270 waiting for the senate to do anything on. and we wait for the senate to act and have a conference committee to reconcile the differences. no one in the house is they get their way on every bill, on every provision all the time. we want a product sent to the senate and have the senate do their due diligence and pass legislation and have a chance to go to conference committee and reconcile the differences. and won't get everything they want or we want and reconcile
those differences and has to go back and repass. my third year in congress, i have taken to reminding folks things they learned in fifth grade school about how i'm a bill sitting on capitol hill and how it's supposed to go to one chairman beer. instead as the previous speaker, congressman biggs from arizona mentioned. you have 48 democrats in the senate who filibuster everything, everything. and my colleagues on the majority side of the aisle don't put the bills on the floor to make them see them filibuster to avoid conference committees and avoid passing anything in the senate and just stop anything from happening. it is a travesty. neither republicans or democrats should stand tore an abusive system in the senate. put the bills over there and
make them act. we started passing pieces of the choice act in order to get it over to the senate and maybe act on something. we shouldn't have to do that, mr. speaker. the senate can pass any set of bills we want and consider it in the house. we have led bypassing the choice act bill, which is the right thing to do. as disappointing to see the u.s. senate to pass anything on health care, the one silver lining was the american people can see what happens if three republicans joined with 48 democrats to vote against the bill. we did not have votes to pass anything on health care and the whole health care reform plan died at that moment and sitting here today with a failing health care system that is going to continue to fail. it's getting worse, our bill wasn't perfect, but at least we did something in the house to address the problem. i'm not saying this bill is
perfect. but we are doing something to address the problem that consumers are demanding and have more choice and access to funds to buy a home or start a small business. we are doing something about it. we have passed all 12 appropriation bills in the senate. the senate should bring up the military funding bill. between now and we are in november, and in december, next months, funding and the senate is doing nothing on appropriations bills. they should bring that floor right now and have a vote. and passed this chamber with a strong bipartisan majority. there are votes in the senate and the house to fund the military. 48 democratic senators want to abuse their power and abuse their filibuster tradition, it's not in the constitution but a courtesy. if they want to abuse that
power, the american people should see that and try to blame the president or the house. they should pass a military appropriations bill. we'll reconcile the differenceses. that ladies and gentlemen is how the process is supposed to work. hat's what kept our democratic form of government, and the republican constitution, that's what has kept our country functional and working well, having that bipartisan, bicameral process. what is currently happening is a travesty to this process where it is being abused. they have all these bills over there and high time for them to take action, pass something and let's go to conference committee and reconcile the differenceses. i urge the senate to act on the choice act.
we are trying to the fiduciary rule these are other parts of the choice act that need action. the american people need and expect relief. with that, mr. floor leader, i yield back. . . mr. buck: i thank the gentleman. we appreciate your work very much. with rising premiums and sky high deductibles, americans are hurting under obamacare. americans talk about increasing computation in the health care market and the next bill makes that talk a reality. h.r. 372, the competitive health insurance reform act restores federal antitrust laws to the health insurance industry, ensuring that the market for health insurance remains competitive and affordable for americans. on march 22, the house passed this legislation in overwhelmingly bipartisan
fashion. 416 members voted for it. 226 days later, and the senate can still not move this legislation through its chamber. i'd like to invite my friend and colleague, representative paul gosar from arizona, to say a few words about this bill he's sponsor. i yield him as much time as he may consume. mr. gosar: i would like to thank my friend from colorado, mr. buck, for giving me the opportunity to highlight the good work the house has accomplished this year. i urge my colleagues in the senate to build on these accomplishments so congress as a whole can keep their promises to the american people. as congress continues to face the pre-eminent task of repairing our nation's health care system, first and foremost we must establish the proper foundation for a competitive and consumer-driven consumer marketplace. the health insurance reform act of 2017 will restore the application of federal antitrust and competition laws to the
health insurance industry, ending the special interest exemption is the essential first step to broader health care reform. popular cost e-reducing reform priorities such as selling insurance across state lines and developing diverse, consumer-driven plan, are predicated on the robust, competitive mark this is bill will ensure. the mccarry-ferguson act of 1945 exempted the insurance industry from the sherman act and clayton purpose ofat was the fairness. this was to help the new industry of insurance. however, after 70 years, it is apparent that the broad stroked exemption created by congress in the 1940's was not wise. over the decades, and expeditiously since the passage of obamacare in 2009, the health insurance market has devolved into one of the least transparent and midwest anti-competitive industries in
the united states. it is clear that the continued exemption of the health insurance industry from the full application of the federal antitrust laws has had an unfair impact on consumers. it shows up as artificially higher premiums, unfair restrictions, harmful policy exclusions and no diversity of choice. these antiquated exemptions are no longer necessary. there's no reason in law, policy, or logic for the health insurance to have special exemptions different from all other businesses in the united states. repeal of the specific section of the mccarran-ferguson act which applies only to health insurance has strong bipartisan support. a form of this legislation passed the democrat-controlled house in the 111th congress by a vote of 406-19 and passed the republican-led house in the 112th congress by a voice vote. similar legislation has been introduced by multiple democratic members of the house and the text of my bill has been
included in the republican study committee's health care reform bill for the last four congresses in a row. in march of this year, this pro-market reform showed -- received the biggest show of support yet, pass big an overwhelming majority of 416-7. when 416 members of the house agree, it sends a strong call to action in the senate. as a dentist i know how important robust competition is to dynamic and effective health insurance. it should plo tect the patient as well as the health care provider. it should uniformly apply checks and balances that prevent monopolies an incentivize competition. those equally provide -- applied antitrust provisions don't exist. i don't have a crystal ball to tell you what the future holds for health care or what it will look like, i don't think anybody knows. but i can tell you that history is an important fwide. the 70-year antitrust exemption for health insurance has strangled competition and resulted in a consolidated
anti-competitive and nontransparent scheme controlled by seven mega corporations. that's not what we want for our future. instead, let's liberate the market by removing this antitrust exemption. imagine what could exist when we put the patient first and demand the health insurance companies compete for their business. this market should be patient- centered, patient-focused and provide a variety of affordable actions that involve patient involvement and accountability. the passage of the competitive health insurance reform act into law is an important first step into increasing competition in the health insurance market and will assist in setting the foundation for competitive and patient-centered health care reform of i thank my friends in the house for their strong support and at the same time promises were made in the senate to get a vote on the senate floor. i urge my colleagues in the senate to build upon the good work of this chamber and do their part to restore competition in the health insurance industry.
there is an old say, trust is a series of promises kept. keep the promise. we're watching. with that, i yield back. mr. buck: i thank my friend from arizona and especially with his health care background, i know he has said on many occasions he is a dentist impersonating a congressman right now, i feel the same way as a prosecutor impersonating a congressman. i appreciate his friendship and great insight. mr. speaker, i'd like to now invite my friend and colleague, representative ted poe, to speak about the email privacy act. this legislation clears up a loophole in the electronic communications privacy act, ecpa that allows the government, after a certain amount of time, to search someone's email if it's held on a third party server. the ecpa was passed in 1986. for the past 30 years our technology has drastically advanced but our electronic communications policy has been stuck in the 1980's. the email privacy act allows the
law to catch up with the tech. this bill requires the government to have a warrant if they're going to search your email. this legislation passed on voice vote after 269 days, the bill still sits in the senate judiciary committee. i'd like to invite my friend and colleague, representative poe, to speak about this legislation and i yield him as much time as he may consume. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding, for the time and for doing this special order. congressman buck. the -- most members of congress agree, i believe, that the constitution should be followed. there are certain rights in the constitution that are very, very important to all of us. and one of those is the right of privacy. enumerated specifically in the fourth amendment. the fourth amendment is unique to america. other countries don't have the fourth amendment. we have it in the united states.
to protect the privacy of americans. so let me give you a little history. as congressman buck pointed out, back in 1986, which was an eternity ago when you start talking about the digital age, congress passed legislation to protect the emails that people had on their server for six months. the idea was that people wouldn't keep their email, they would delete them and six months was a good enough time to protect those emails from the spies in our government. i'll use that phrase. that's my phrase. and that is the current law. but here's what has happened over that 30 years. many americans store their emails after that six month
period. they store them in the cloud, for example. americans store their schedules in the cloud. they store photographs in the cloud. when an american stores those items that are over six months old in the cloud, they are not protected against the search by our government of that email. of those photographs. of that schedule. in fact, searches can take place without the knowledge of the person whose email is being searched, without the approval of that individual, and government never notifies that individual. that that email stored in the cloud was searched. because under current law, the american citizen is only
protected for emails stored on your server up to sick months. so -- up to six months. after about four years of working on this legislation with my friend, zoe lofgren, from california, bipartisan, we presented to congress h.r. 387, the email privacy act. and as congressman buck said, in february, on february 7, to be exact, of this year that passed by voice vote. on this floor. and we sent it down the hallway to the siesta senate to take a vote over there. and they have yet to vote on it. so what does that legislation do? it protects the right of privacy of americans. it requires government to follow the constitution. i'm a former criminal court
judge in texas, for 22 years. like mr. buck i was a prosecutor in the d.a.'s office in houston. the fourth amendment of the constitution, remembering that this is unique to america, protects americans, their persons, their houses, their papers and their personal effects, from the intrusion of government unless government has probable cause and government gets a search warrant. that's the law. that's the fourth amendment. you know, government has a proximate cause, go get a warrant from a judge. i signed hundreds of warrants from law enforcement as a judge. simple example. government can't search our mail, snail mail as it's now called. when you put a letter in the mailbox and the post-master picks it up, sends it across the fruited plain, it lands in
somebody else's mailbox, government cannot generally go into that letter and seize it for any purpose unless they have a warrant to do so. there's some exceptions. but government can seize your emails after six months if they're stored in the cloud. as i already mentioned. without a warrant. so this legislation basically requires government to follow the constitution. we've heard about the widespread abuse, it's my opinion, the widespread abuse of the n.s.a. over the last several years. government agencies that have felt like they had a blank check to search and seize american information without the knowledge, without their approval. and without a warrant. and this legislation goes to prevent that. simply requires that information
stored in the cloud, emails, photographs, schedules, or whatever, government can go get it. the government has got to get a search warrant to seize that information. that's what this legislation does. it protects the fourth amendment. it protects americans. it's simple legislation. it passed the house on voice vote. but yet we cannot protect people in congress, excuse me, congress, senate, refuses to protect americans from searches, unlawful searches, without the knowledge of americans, and we need to pass the legislation, the legislation that zoe lofgren and i have sponsored, that has passed the house, and to protect that basic right. i thank our -- i think our senators would vote all yes for this legislation. they believe in the constitution like the rest of us. they believe in the fourth amendment like the rest of us. so let's get a vote.
another piece of legislation. the house has passed, we've done our job, we want the senate to follow up and pass this good legislation to make it the law of the land so americans are more secure in their papers and their effects and their homes. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. mr. buck: i thank the gentleman for his hard work and persistence on this very important issue. mr. speaker, this year the house completed all 12 appropriations bills. it's the first time in decades that that's happened. i'm proud that our chamber worked hard to return to regular appropriations process. i can tell you that there are many late nights spent looking through amendment after amendment, both in the rules committee hearing room and on the house floor. we thoughtfully considered these bills and offered them for vote os then house floor. but the senate hasn't approved any of these 12 bills. not one. republicans, month by month,
crisis to crisis, appropriating of the obama administration. now republicans are in charge. without senate action, we're stare do you think the barrel of another omnibus or continuing resolution. this isn't fair to the american people. the founders fwafe to congress the power of the purse so that 435 men and women in this chamber and 100 men and women in the senate chamber could spend weeks at a time thoughtfully discerning how to spend taxpayer dollars. that's our job. the house has feignished its work nor year. now we beg the senate to finish theirs. the house has done good work. we've listened to our constituents, worked with our stakeholders, and met each other in the middle on many bills. now we're left just talking about these great bills. because they're all stuck in the senate. i want to take a minute in closing to remind the senate why we're here. why the voters offered the republican party control of both chambers and the white
house. we're here because americans want fewer regulations. we're here because americans want lower health care premiums and costs. we're here because americans want a stronger stance against the world's bullies. we're here because americans want respect for the rule of law. and we're here because americans want our veterans to have the best care. we're here because americans want better access to credit. they want to protect unborn life. we're here because americans expect us to improve their lives, to work on meaningful legislation that limits government, that stewards taxpayer dollars effectively, and that guards family values. americans should know that the house of representatives has heard them. we've passed bills to address these concerns. now we turn to the senate and ask them to do the same. i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all members are reminded to avoid engaging in personalities of members toward the senate.
under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan, or 30 minutes. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening on the floor of the united states house of representatives. and talk about a timely issue most s an issue that is important to most of the american people. and that is the issue of the economy, globalization, automation, all of the issues that are coming down on many communities across the united states. and i want to take this opportunity to spend the next 30 minutes walking through for the american people a little bit about what's happened and talk very clearly about the
differences in approach on how we deal with these issues and how the republican party is trying to deal with these issues. and how those of us on the democratic side want to deal with these issues. and i don't want to get into a suggestion at all, mr. speaker, about who hates whom and who's bad and who's good and who's this and who's that. i want to talk about the facts. and i want to talk about the historical facts and i want to talk about what is happening to average families across these united states. and clearly given the volatility of the elections over the past really 15 years or so, i would argue that most of those elections have been about the economy. that most of those elections have been about wages and
pensions and security and stability for families. and we have seen in my community in northeast ohio, my district is from akron, ohio, over to youngstown and points in between, right up against the pennsylvania border. and what we have seen over the last 20 or 30 years, and for a while you think that all of this is just happening to your community and then you realize, as you read and travel, you begin to see that unfortunately most communities are facing very similar circumstances as the ones that i represent. and so here on this chart we have an outline of what has happened in communities with regard to foreign trade and automation.
and the red are the states that have been hardest hit. and as it moves from red to brown to purple to blue and then a lighter blue, red is the most, down to the least affected by globalization and automation. you will see on this chart the industrial midwest, you will see up in new england, you will see down south, you will see into, as you move more to the central part of the country, d then up into the northwest hardest hit, manufacturing states hardest hit. the deep south hardest hit by globalization and automation. and so the big question facing the united states of america today in 2017 is how do we fix this problem? these are states that have had significantly lower growth.
they've been hit hard with wages that have been stagnant for close to 30 years. we've seen an erosion of their pensions. and so what are we going to do about this? so, the topic today in washington, d.c., is the issue of tax reform. and so we talk about tax reform in the context of the last time we had tax reform, 31 years we mr. speaker, since then ve seen 96% of income growth has gone to the wealthiest 10% of families in the united states. in 30 years 96% of income growth in the country, almost all of it, has gone to the top
10%. so the average family is getting squeezed. and so when you look back at the elections going back to, i , nk, 2006, i thought 2004 2002 and 2004 were going to be elections about the economy too. but after 9/11 that had an impact on what the national conversation was about, with regard to our elections. but i would argue, and i was here, and since 2003 i would argue that in 2006 that election, putting democrats in, was about the economy. and i would say that 2008, during the presidential election, and again for congress, was about the economy. we had a complete collapse, american people didn't think the democrats fixed things fast
enough. so in 2010 they put the republicans in congress. 2012 things were getting better for he election went president barack obama, thinking that he was moving things slightly in the right direction, but they thought he'd probably be better than mitt romney who would have let the auto industry collapse and was perceived as being more in line with the financial institutions in the united states, so they voted for president obama. and then 14 republicans, obama -- 2014, republicans, president obama wasn't doing things fast enough, still the squeeze. and then obviously in 2016, america voted for president trump. thinking that he was promising expansion of health care, opening the up -- opening up the coal mines, opening up the
steel mills, going to get the economy back. he was going to do it, it was going to be beautiful, and he was going to do it with the waving of a magic wand, it was going to be easy. so all of those elections were about the economy. so we still have this squeeze happening in the united states. we still have 63% of american families who could not with tand a $500 -- withstand a $500 catastrophe in their family. with their car, with health insurance, with someone's health in their family, with an accident. send n an emergency would the family spinning out of control. 6 % of the families in the -- 63% of the families in the united states. we see with pensions, for xample, that the average erson, 65-years-plus, only has
$60,000 in a 401-k, which means they can draw about $3,000 a yeerk not a month, a -- a year, not a month, a year out of their 401-k for 20 years. their average social security is a little over $1,000. and their pension isn't much. all of this averages to about $25,000 a year. so you're squeezed with your pension, you've had stagnant wages. you don't have much of a savings. and most families can't withstand even a $500 emergency . and this constant squeeze over the last 30 years, from globalization and automation, has put many of the communities on the last chart behind the eight-ball, unable to get and keep their nose above water for them and their families. so our job is to figure out what the heck are we going to do about that? so the republicans today
program of tax cuts. so here's what their tax cuts look like. so, remember, i said 96% of income growth over the last 31 years went to the top 10%. so the republican plan, again, we're not mad at them, this is just what they think is going to work, ok? their idea is, why don't we give a tax cut to people making more than $1 million a year? they'll see a good chunk of the tax cut. the next group, people making between $500,000 and $1 million a year, will see the next part, biggest chunk of the tax come. so the people who are making all of the income gains over the last 30 years, that huge
concentration of wealth in the last 30 years, the republicans think, if we give them a tax cut, that they're going to take that tax cut and it's going to trickle down to those red states that i had up here earlier. in the industrial midwest, in the south, moving into the central part of the country, and in the new england states that aren't really surrounded and based on finance. let's give them a tax cut and hope it makes its way and trickles its way down to youngstown, ohio. that's their solution. that's what they think is going to work. so, let's ask ourselves if we tried this before. we have. we tried this when i was early in my career, we tried this approach of supply-side economics. we're going to cut taxes for
the wealthy. and they're going to take that money and it's going to make its way back into the economy and it's going to get wages up and secure pensions and all the rest. so, with the republican plan, they've done things to do that. not just cut taxes for the wealthy, they get rid of the alternative minimum tax, which means no matter how many loopholes you're able to take advantage of, there's a minimum you're going to have to pay. and if they get rid of that minimum tax, and if that minimum tax wasn't in place a few years back, president trump would have reduced his tax burden by $30 million. just so we can wrap our heads around this stuff. and under the plan that they 175,000 the top
richest families in the country will see a $700,000 tax cut. that's their plan. and we really can't afford it, because we have to borrow $1.5 trillion to pay for all this stuff. so that's where we are. that's their solution. huge challenges with the middle class, huge challenges with pensions, huge challenges with wages and retirement and cost of health care and education. and their plan is to cut the taxes for the wealthy and hope it helps everyone else. that's their plan. so, we've tried this before. when president bush got in, there were two rounds of tax cuts that he passed in the early part of the first decade of this century. and he gave most of the taxes, same way, to the top 1% of earners. they got a huge chunk of what we called the bush tax cuts.
ok? so, that was their strategy back then. so, what happened in that decade following the bush tax cuts? after the e that bush tax cuts we had the slowest economic growth in the united states post-world war ii, slowest growth across the board in the united states. they cut taxes for the wealthiest in the hopes that it would somehow make its way and help the economy. and they also deregulated the financial markets because that was going to help too. so what happened is we had very low growth, ok, employment only
increased by .3%. the real g.d.p. only grew by 2.6%. wages were stagnant. 2008, we all remember in 2007, 2008, things started to unravel in the economy and we had a huge collapse in the housing market that was deregulated, didn't have any cops on the beat watching what was going on. so stagnant growth. ends in collapse. and then democrats came in and quite frankly fixed the problem. stemmed the tide, did what we did. that's a whole other story. so the idea that cutting taxers in wealthy is going to bump employment and bump g.d.p. growth is shown in recent economic history to not be true.
now what do we have to compare this with? if we go back another decade, to 1993, when president bill clinton got into office, he had a different strategy. the democrats had a different strategy. started to run up the deficits coming out of the 1980's. had to get our financial house in order. president clinton came in. raised some taxes on the wealthiest people in the country. not because we don't like them but the country needed revenue. and we reinvested that money, balanced the budget, and what happened? totally different strategy than our friends on the other side want, right? totally different. and what we saw in the 1990's
as employment at 2.4%. and we saw real g.d.p. growth at 3.7%. so the red is the bush tax cuts that we've already tried. and the historicalage soifs that. ending in a financial collapse. stagnant wages. what we saw with president clinton's economic plan is that we saw real growth and we saw an improvement in employment and wages went up in every single bracket. from the poorest to the wealthiest, everybody made more money. because we had a balanced plan on how to do it. and so when we look at what happened with the bill clinton lan, oh, by the way, ended the
decade with a $5.6 trillion surplus. $5.6 trillion surplus. that we had here in the united states. that when president bush got in, he gave it all away in tax cuts nd i just told you that story. so what the democrats are saying is kind of what president trump was saying during the campaign. there's been this huge concentration of wealth at the top. and they seen all the income gain. and we've got debt and deficit to pay for. we've got to rebuild the united states. we've got to lay broadband in every corner of the country. we need a new energy grid. we need a resilient economy to
prepare ourselves for the storms and the hurricanes and the ups and downs from climate change. we've got to reinvest back into our neighborhoods. we have thousands of blighted homes and communities across the united states that immediate to come down. so what we're saying is, don't borrow $1.5 trillion, borrow it from china, and then take the money that you're borrowing from china and paying interest on and then giving it to primarily the top 1% of the wealthiest people in the united states. that doesn't make any sense. in good times, i don't know if that makes any sense. but certainly not when we're already running huge deficits. not when we have the baby boomers moving into our health care programs for the elderly.
not when we have an opiate epidemic where we lost more people in one year last year than we lost in the entire vietnam war. that doesn't make any sense. we got to rebuild the country. we're competing with china. we have to make sure that our military is equipped. our students are educated. we're investing in research and development. to develop wind and solar. the next generation of renewable energy. the next generation of jobs. and we're borrowing money from china to the tune of $1.5 trillion? to give to the wealthiest people in the country? does that make any sense? mr. speaker, it does not.
this is the most irresponsible tax proposal i've seen. i will even say it's more irresponsible than the bush tax crets. at least with the bush tax credit we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. now many of us were saying, put that in the medicare, put it in the social security, al gore campaign, put it in the lockbox don't touch it, save it for a rainy day. a few months later, 9/11 happened, we could have used that. could have rebuilt the country, moved the economy forward, reinvested back into the united states. so at least we had it. coming. it was -- the economy was growing. president bush said we'll give it back as tax cuts, primarily to the rich. now we don't even have it. now we're going to go out and
borrow it. bring it in. china. ok, china, we'll owe you another $1.5 trillion, we're not going to give it to the middle class who hasn't seen a pay raise in years, we're going to give it to the top end. i think this is very irresponsible for us. as we're trying to get the economy to work for everybody and we have all of these challenges that we're trying to get our arms around here in the united states. that will take some public investment. and i'm not here to say that the government can solve all our problems, because it can't. i'm not saying that every solution is about writing a check from uncle sam and putting it into a program, because it's not. but what we do have to do is make some investments on the public side that are going to allow for growth. and when you talk about things
like broadband penetration, to make sure that rural america or small towns or certain parts of our cities have access to high speed broadband, high speed internet access, you will see that for every 10% penetration, you see, i think it's one, 1.3%, .4% growth in the g.d.p. sounds like a pretty good investment. let's figure out how we can do a public-private partnership with the telecommunications companies. and the public. to make sure we have high speed internet access all over the united states. let's sit down with the power companies. the energy companies. and figure out how we redo our energy grid. a that we can have a 20 --
21st century efficient, secure energy grid and by the way, ask all these people who are underemployed today to help us build out this new america. because whether it's broadband or the energy grid, it's in the ground, these jobs can't be outsourced. same with renewable energy. many of the jobs related to renewable energy cannot be outsourced. these are the investments we need to make. and again, we're competing with china. and this, my friends, is a very important point. that when you look at what china is doing, militarily, with north korea, not helping as much as we want them to. moving out, actually building islands in the south china sea, further projecting their force.
they're moving into africa, already in africa. establishing bases in africa. building relationships, getting minerals and other resources out of africa. moving ahead with battery powered cars. in china. here they're moving and spending $360 billion on renewable energy initiatives by 2020. creating 13 million jobs. china son the move. -- china is on the move. what are we doing? what's the republican party want to do? what does the trump administration want to do, mr. speaker? while china is investing billions of dollars in renewable energy, creating 13 million new jobs, this genius idea is to go
and borrow $.5 trillion from them and take it and give it to the wealthiest people in the united states in the form of a tax cut they don't need. and we're going to further position ourselves behind them in the race for the green economy. this could mean jobs in places like youngstown, ohio. investment in places like youngstown, ohio. driving up wages in youngs it is town, ohio. increasing an securing pensions in these industrial states. that to me makes sense. that, to me is a smart plan. and so, mr. speaker, i am deeply frustrated with this tax cut. i think it is irresponsible.
i don't think it makes economic sense. and as we start to peel through it, other than the big picture of $1.5 trillion we're going to borrow from the chinese to pay for it, they're going to get rid of people's ability to deduct student loans, medical emergencies, no longer be able to deduct that. they're providing instability in the wind sector with the wind tax credit which has about $50 billion in investment going, about 50,000 jobs at stake, 500 factories participated in this new economy. there's a way to do this. there's a way to be smart. we can't let our ideology determine our public policy if it doesn't make any sense. and if we can have a balanced approach, we pay for the
spending, because of the situation we're in, we ask the wealthiest in the united states to help us pay for this because they have seen 96% of the income growth over the last 30 years. and if we do it right, and we do it smart, we will position the next generation of americans to be in an economy that they can thrive in, that provides stability for them, and security for them and their families. and it will also help us deal with the great challenge of our time which global climate change. so mr. speaker, i hope as this process moves forward, we recognize that this tax cut bill is not the solution to the economic problems, it has gone against what the president of the united states campaigned on
and i believe it's the very betrayal of his campaign and a betrayal of what that campaign meant to so many people and a betrayal of those very people that he said he was going to help. with that, mr. speaker, i yield ack the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, for 30 minutes. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much, mr. speaker. our merican way of life, judeo-christian valuesy -- values, are under attack than never before. people under -- understand there's a threat out there. but the magnitude keeps coming home of what a threat it is. radical islamic terrorists with a backward, evil, seventh century view of the world are out to destroy and kill us. they seek to terrorize western
countries and americans in particular into retreat. well, instead we must stand tall. we must have the courage to do what is necessary because it does depend on us. it always has been, as when naziism and japanese militarism threatened the world, it was the united states that carried the day for the decent people of the world. when communism threatened to establish eighth yiftic dictatorships throughout the world and was on the march, yes, it was the american people that stood strong and had those policies necessary to hold off the communist menace until it had -- until it collapsed basically of its own inconsistencies and its own evil nature. well, we have great -- we had great leadership at those other battles and i say thank goodness that today we now have a president who actually can
speak the words against and condemn this horrible force that threatens our country and the people of the world. yes, we have a president who can actually say those words, radical islamic terrorism. for eight years we had a president who couldn't use those words. much less do those things that were necessary to defeat this threat and to make sure our people were secure. some, if not many, of our leaders have been afraid to confront the basic nature of those who have made repeated terrorist attacks and assaults and -- on anyone who is not signing onto their fanatical religious agenda becomes a terrorist target. not only christians, but jews and other muslims.
president trump is at long last providing the courageous leadership in this historic battle. congress needs to support our president. we need to stand with him and to stand united against this evil and, yes, defend ourselves. we must not be afraid and we must not only defend ourselves, but also do what is necessary to defeat and extinguish this ghoulish adversary and end his bloody assault on western civilization and, yes, on moderate islam. words are not enough. our homeland is under attack -- under attack. people are in danger. our families, our country and our way of life is under attack. these attackers come from many countries. both men and women. but in common, these people who have been murdering people and the mayhem they've been creating throughout the western world, whether it's in france
or in the united states or elsewhere, these men and women who participate in these evil acts of terrorism have something that they have in common. they all pledge allegiance to radical islam. that is our enemy. not islam, not islam itself. but the radical fanaticism that terrorists -- faunas similar, the terrorists and the islamic psychopaths that are out there murdering in the worst possible and ghoulish ways people in order to, yes, in order to have to shock us and in order to intimidate the west into retreat. this week a 29-year-old uzbek immigrant plowed a truck into people walking and cycling in new york city's -- in a new york city pathway. he killed eight people and he proclaimed that he was inspired by islam. in fact, he said he was proud
what have he had done and even requested the display of his islamic state flag in his hospital room. we need to ask ourselves, why are we allowing islamic terrorists like this into our country in the first place? how much longer will we close our eyes and bury our heads in the sand? we have even witnessed horrendous terrorist attacks, even in my home state. we know that. we've seen it. on december 2, 2015, in san bernardino, 14 innocent and wonderful people were brutally slaughtered and 22 seriously injured by an immigrant from pakistan. a hotbed of radicalism. and, yes, his motive was his fanatic belief in what he considers to be islam. it was truly one of the most evil attacks in our state's
history. n orlando on june 12, that's 2016, 49 night clubbers out having a good time enjoying themselves as americans, life, liberty and the pursuit of happen ybs, they were having a good time -- happiness, they were having a good time. and 49 of these night clubbers were brutally murdered and mowed down. all of these innocent lives were slaughtered. americans who were blown apart at the boston marathon is no different. we have american victims staring us in the face saying, what are you going to do to bring justice and to protect the americans that we left behind? our families? these horrific crimes of cowards, mirwhars has happened -- of cowards mirror what is has happened to innocent people throughout the world. yes, we americans are suffering and as i say, we've seen it in france, we have seen in yurengs we've seen it in muslim countries where these fanatics take christians out and behead them. but they also, of course, attack moderate muslims.
they are out to try to topple the government of al-sisi in egypt. and all the other governments there that are not committed to the fanatic view of islam that they hold. most recent attacks in new york should at least open our eyes to things that we can do here. maybe we can't stop it all over the world, but at least we can do is take steps to protect our own citizens from this type of fanatical threat that hangs over us. well, we need to take specific stepts that -- steps that can and should be done to help deal with this danger. i have in fact discussed a plan with the president, and this was a few months ago, and we've had a lot of work and a lot of things under the bridge since then, but his commitment to border security includes placing a wall on the southern border. yes, making sure that we have border security and, yes, if it takes a wall on our southern
border, the president is right on target. a wall and beefing up our border will, of course, be expensive. that is why i laid out a plan to the president and have since offered legislation that would pay for president trump's proposed border wall. the car attack in new york has altered many americans -- people and alerted many americans to something that they didn't know about before. and that is that we have an immigration system, an immigration law that permits 50,000 people to immigrate into our country every year, 50,000 people who are chosen by lottery. not by some -- looking at them, some examination of their credentials, seeing what they could contribute. no. a lottery. and of course senator schumer and -- in the senate, i guess,
was the man who actually insisted on this. well, i'm sure he was well intended, but what we have now is people -- instead of bringing in the people who can most contribute to our country, he's insisted we leave 50,000 of them up to a lottery system. this is insanity. it's forced onto us, forced into policy by liberal left politicians who would flood our country with illegals, which is something they're doing besides just this threat that we're talking about, but -- because these people -- and when the lottery, of course, are not coming here illegally, but at the same time the same people are pushing that type of system , are pushing for policies that would flood our country with illegals. and has flooded our country with illegals. that has brought down our health care system, our education system, we brought criminals into our country. and we have had an uncontrolled
border. yes, the people who are responsible for that have also been responsible for a policy that just permitted 50,000 people legally to come here, and those 50,000 people are people not selected by a rational process, but instead by a lottery. the terrorist murderers in new york, of course, were here. that terrorist murderer, and maybe murderers, they were here on the lottery visa. they weren't here because they had been selected. in fact, the lottery selected this uzbeky fanatic muslim and he didn't have the skills and the education necessary to live a decent life and he ended up killing a lot of people in new york. surprise, surprise. we should know about these people who are coming into our country. period. whether they're come -- those people who come in illegally, we've millions of people pouring into our country illegally. and then what do our liberal
left politicians on the other side say? we need sanctuary cities to protect them. the ones who are here illegally and have come here illegally, which of course does nothing but encourage more people to come here illegally, and the more who are here illegally are people who we don't know what they're all about. do you think the fanatic islamic terrorist that i am referring to today didn't notice that our border was porous and that people were pouring across our border from the -- from our southern border? well, we should know about everybody who is coming into the country and we should choose the very best people who can contribute to our country. i have no problem with a very robust legal immigration into our country. no problem at all. neither do the republicans that i know. but what we have a problem with is an -- a flood of illegals coming in, bidding down the wages of our own citizens, some of them criminals, attacking and killing the citizens like we saw in san francisco, a young lady when was killed by
an illegal who had been sent home. but also even within the system that is legal immigrants, we need to know who those people are and selecting the very best people to come here. the plan that i offered to the president, which will make it easier for him to accomplish this mission, is a plan that would take that slot in our lottery. 50,000 people who now come in under a lottery, like the guy who just killed those people in new york, instead let's use that slot, those 50,000 places in our legal immigration system, and offer it to foreigners who are very wealthy, who can be given the privilege of paying $1 million each to come here and eventually become a citizen. if we can do that, that million dollars and those 50,000 slots will give us all the money we need to build that wall. and it's fitting that we build that wall and we secure our borders and beef up our system of immigration to protect our citizens and that we actually
have people who want to come here and immigrate here pay for that reform. we need to implement immigration policies that serve the american people. that's what this should be, the first and foremost, not some crazy notion that we're going to -- oh, build -- get some kind of better spirit by opening up the immigration into our country, to anybody who can get here. and let's let a lottery decide. let's not do it rationally. no. we need to make sure everybody who comes here is going to contribute. and they're good people. and thus we can all stand together and the most important thing is they're coming here because they want to be americans. like almost all the legal immigrants who come here, people who want to be americans. and we will open our arms, as we have and as republicans who are opposed to illegal immigration have said over and over again. well, i have proposed h.r. 2724
, and i call on president trump to pay attention to this and i call on my colleagues to pay attention to this. i urge my colleagues to take a look at that legislation that will offer us the financial resources we need to bolster r borders, to make sure that there is a wall, but also to make sure that we are not bringing into this country people who are associated with radical islamic fanaticism that would do us harm. so i'm asking my colleagues to look at that legislation. i'm asking anyone who is reading the congressional record or listening to this perhaps to talk to their congressman on this issue. in the past two weeks we have been provided information on another issue that i'd like to bring up. and i'd like to ask the chair how many minutes that i have ft in my -- what i've been
allotted. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 16 minutes remaining. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. i will try to bring up something that we have heard and we need to discuss this as americans because it also is about a very major flaw in our system that is apparent. things that have been not right for the last two years. in the past two information has been provided to the american people that has exposed the hypocrisy and misinformation forced down our throats for months concerning he allege that president trump coluded with the russians in order to steal the last election. over and over again, fake news filled the airwaves and the newspapers and suggesting there was a sinister plot that kept
hillary from becoming president of the united states. the core accusation was the ussians hacked into the d.n.c. computers and emails were handed over to wikileaks and released to the public. hat exposure to this and you know unconscionable activities tween them, these emails did have an impact on the election as many democrats who supported bernie sanders felt they had been cheated by their own party because the proof was being offered to them by these wikileaks' emails that had been taken from the democratic
national committee. we heard that trump stole the election because he was collusion ith the -- with the russians. and sinister proof that there was collusion with the russians and thus they stole the election. it was pounded into our heads even after the election. hillary lost the election not because -- they want us to believe because she was a rotten candidate running on a platform that undermined her own candidacy, but instead she lost because the g.o.p. had subterfuge in which they were working with russians that helped them out with stealing
the election. this continued attack on president trump did not stop when the election was over. . it went month after month after the election what apped to be an effort to disrupt our new president's authority and tore exercise powers granted to him by the american voters and that was going to be disrupted so he could not become a regular president of the united states as our election process had determined. talk about not being loyal to the american way of life. after months of this obstructionist tactics, the american people are now learning the whole truth. they are learning that the attack on trump was a fraud, a total fraud, a power grab which those who lost the election in an attempt to disrupt the
american people from this wrong doing and first and foremost let's make it clear. the russians did not hack and steal the democratic e mails. it is now coming to light there are far worst things but that stealing of those emails and making them public -- we are not talking about the public giving them false information but information that the democrats didn't want them to have. and what is coming to light is that the clinton foundation -- so these other charges we have heard about president trump may be something to distract about something that was being done that was wrong and similar light that was wrong and being done by hillary clinton and her family. in terms of collusion with the russians, it has come to light
that the clinton foundation ollected $150 million from russian oligarches that was depositted into the clinton foundation coffers and they depositted $500,000 right into the clinton family's pockets for a speech. they are going to give them a speaker's fee of $500,000 for one speech and all of this was happening when hillary was secretary of state. it was also happening when our government was making a decision as to whether they should sell 20% of america's uranium reserves to russia. why we would seriously consider that, i don't know. in my research and i found evidence that did not seem right, the f.b.i. had an informant watch this go down.
right there in russia and instead of charging hillary with a crime which was not done by the f.b.i., a gag order was placed on this witness that was working as an informer for the f.b.i. that gag order at the time was and who put it on this witness? the head of the f.b.i. and who was the head of the f.b.i., robert mueller. that gag order was kept on by mueller and the gag order on the informant who had this information about the negotiations for contributions to the clinton fund of $150 million. this guy was kept and a gag order all of this time even while mueller was head of the f.b.i. this is the same mueller who is now the special prosecutor trying to find anything to
charge trump with collusion with the russians. that gag order over the witness with hillary wasn't lifted until last week when we said we have to have a public hearing. we need to have a public hearing on any type of negative or let's say illegal collusion by any politician which would have included hillary. yes, i know that i have advanced the idea of cooperating with the russians and this may seem out of place. whatever we do with the russians needs to be what is in the interest of the people of the united states. certainly giving away 20% of america's uranium reserves and then gagging one of the witnesses to the discussions that were taking place at the
time when at the same time, oligarches in russia were providing the clintons with $150 million to their donation right into the pockets of the personal pockets of bill clinton. now, we need to move forward on this. and as we know, the special prosecutor, mr. mueller, who kept the gag order on this witness, who didn't charge hillary in the beginning, now has found someone to indict. paul manafort has been indicted. our special prosecutor was tasked to see if there was rush collusion. -- and what did he come up with tax evasion by paul manafort and guess what? the tax evasion he is being
charmingd with happened long before paul had anything to do with donald trump. there is something wrong there. and and we need to have a new special prosecutor. and we need to make sure we are seeking this information and documenting it. for example, putting the people under oath. there were a group of policy makers that made the decision of whether or not to sell that uranium to the russians. they need to be put under oath and asked whether or not anyone representing the clintons ever talked to them during that process and encourage them for this deal of selling the russians this uranium. there are all kinds of avenues we need to nol through on. and instead, mr. mueller ends up
with some kind of a tax violation by one of the players that happened long before he was even associated with donald trump. something has gone heywire here. and we understand now there is also evidence that during that election the clinton campaign paid russian sources -- they went through -- in mid-february, an english intelligence officer, paid millions of dollars to get a false report and video or tape or whatever it was of president trump in some type of compromising situation. but we know now that was false. and that hillary clinton's campaign -- these people talking about collusion with the russians, were paying the
russians to give them this will information. i would hope this comes out and this becomes something that is explained and the american people understand. when they see this attack on our president by people who have a totally different view -- remember the last president couldn't say radical islamic terrorists. he had a different approach. totally different approach that america faces overseas. president obama was elected. hillary was not elected. president trump was elected. these efforts to undermine his authority are the worst kind of repudiation of american way of life and american system of government. we must stand firm against radical islam and stand firm
against an alternative of strength and courage as compared to the coward is and nonsense that we have seen in the policies of the last eight years. with that said, mr. speaker, i would yield back the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman have a motion. rorkrork i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is adopted. the house stands advisory board and they will debate that ship and other health care programs tomorrow life here -- live here on c-span.