tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN December 14, 2017 11:00am-1:01pm EST
aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, ms. waters: it mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. five minutes. [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 275. the nays are 146. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the motion to recommit on h.r. 4324 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the the clerk will designate the motion. the clerk: motion to recommit on h.r. 4324, offered by mr. swalwell of california. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the motion to recommit. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.
the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i request 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. yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
yeas are 252 and the nays are 167. the bill is passed and without on the table. id >> i ask unanimous consent that i may be considered as a primary sponsor of h.r. 3771, a bill sponsored by representative conyers and requesting reprintings and whatever other purposes are appropriate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of h.r. 4324 the clerk insert the word and of the semi-colon in section 2-3-1 of the bill. without objection. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas.
mr. williams: i ask unanimous consent in the engrossment of 3396 the clerk make the correction i placed at the desk. the clerk: amendment number one instruction relating to page 4 line 21 is modified to read as follows. page four line 21, strike financial institutions and insert vehicle financial companies. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the unfinished biggs is question on suspending the bill 4042. the clerk: h.r. 4042 a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service oak street of the borinqueneers post office building the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house pass the bill? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3
being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? mr. gianforte: i ask unanimous consent that the text of h.r. 2815 as proposed be passed under suspension of the rules, be modified by the amendment i placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by the gentleman from drk mr. gianforte: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading the speaker pro tempore: is there an objection to the request of the the gentleman from montana. without objection, the modification is agreed to. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20 the unfinished is passing h.r. 2815 as amended. the clerk: h.r. 2815 a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 30 eastsomer street in raritan, new jersey as the
john basilone post office. those in favor will say eye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the bill is passed and without the motion to consider is amended. the clerk: a bill to amend 30 east somerset as the gunner sergeant john basilone post office. . mr. hoyer: i ask to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of acquiring of the majority leader of the schedule for the week to come. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i now yield to my friend, the majority leader from california, mr. mccarty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the house is not in order.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: on monday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and the balance of the week the house will meet as early as 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of complete s next week, list of which complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. this list will include several lls from the science committee that are part of the house innovation initiative. these bills support americans pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and math with a focus committee that are part of the house innovation on veterans and individuals historically underrepresented in those fields. mr. speaker, my friend and i
recently co-hosted the third congressional hack-a-thon. i think he and i would agree that stem education is an issue of national competitiveness and i look forward to the house passing these bills next week. in addition, the house will consider two measures from the financial services committee. first, h.r. 4015, the corporate governance reform and transparency act sponsored by representative sean duffy. this bill lim prove the quality of proxy research while increasing transparency for public companies and their investors. systemic r. 3312, risk improvement act, sponsored by mr. luetkemeyer, this replaces it with a process that analyzes each institution with individual risk factors. the house will also consider the conference report to accompany h.r. 1, the tax cuts and jobs act sponsored by
representative kevin brady. this historic legislation will cap off a 31-year journey to reform america's broken tax code. we will double the standard deduction making the first $12,000 of income for an individual and $24,000 for a family tax free. we will increase the child tax credit because investing in families is among the most important investments we make. we'll reduce the tax rate on small businesses to the lowest rates that have seen in 40 years. and we do all this while simply filing the tax code so americans can file in minutes on a form the size of a postcard. republicans have championed cutting taxes and growing our economy for years and i am excited to deliver this important promise. finally, mr. speaker, additional legislative items are expected, including legislation related to government funding and a number of other end of the year priorities. i will be sure to inform all members if additional items are
added to our schedule. with that, i thank my friend and yield back to him. the yer: i thank gentleman for that information. first of all, mr. speaker, i want to say that the make the a this body accessible to the general public as they happen. i want to thank the majority leader for continuing to co-sponsor this effort with me and to be a leader on this effort. we just had the president sign,
i think yesterday, may have been the day before, a piece of legislation which will try to make the government more fassel in bringing it's technology up to date so it can operate more efficiently and effectively. i thank the majority leader for working together in a positive way to make this institution work bet earn make it more accessible and better known to the american people. i thank also for the schedule that he has put forward. mr. speaker, the majority leader mentioned a number of things that -- tax bill that will be coming before us will do. i don't believe that the conference report is available for review at this point in time. can the majority leader perhaps enlighten me as to whether or not the conference report is
available now to be reviewed, or if not, when it will be available? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank my friend for yielding. i expect the report to be filed and online tomorrow. as you know you got to go through and make sure from a joint tax filling in the dollar figures and all anticipation it will be on line tomorrow for all america to read. mr. hoyer: it's my understanding that that will be on the floor as early as tuesday of next week? is that accurate? i yield to my friend. r. mccarthy: that is accurate. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i would simply observe that what the majority leader did not mention and again i have not seen the conference report senate bill a
the house bills that were passed by both bodies, it will increase the debt of our .ountry by some $1.5 trillion and a minimum of $1 trillion. it will raise taxes on some 78 million americans. between $50,000 of family income and $150,000 of income. i am assuming that the elimination of the mandate is still in the conference report. i'm not sure but the information i have is that it's still in the report. that, mr. speaker, will cost 13 million people to be uninsured. as a result. i have information, mr. speaker, that what the conference report does is duces taxes on some of the wealthiest people in america.
m not sure how they offset that. maybe with that. maybe with a mandate. maybe with something else. but 62% of the bill's resources go to the top 1% in america. mr. speaker, -- the speaker, speaker ryan, spoke about on family or the average making $59,000 a year. he mentioned that that family will get under the house bill, again i haven't seen the conference report, get family making $1,182 per year in a tax cut. what the speaker did not mention is that the family in the top 1% will get a tax cut f $1,198 per week. per week, mr. speaker. in other words, 52 times what the struggling american will
get. what the american that speaker ryan said may not be able to come up with $500 if they have a crisis with a refrigerator or their heating unit, something of that nature, or their car breaks down. mr. speaker, we on this side of the aisle do not believe that relief for resses the struggling working men and women of this country. in all er, it's clear of the polling that the average working american shares that view. they believe correctly that this is a tax cut for the rich and a few sprinkles all of the polling that the average working american shares that to the
middle class. i'm sure the leader will have something to say on that. in addition, mr. speaker, it is ironic that what will happen in this tax bill is we will phase -- again, to the middle class. i have not seen the conference report so i don't know exactly whether that's true or not, but in both the house and senate bills, we phased out -- we didn't phase out, proposed to be phased out, the benefits to those middle income, hardworking americans will see their benefits phased out. that will not be true of corporations and will not be true of the wealthiest in our country. so it's troubling, mr. speaker, that a bill of this magnitude is being rushed to judgment. in 1986, the gentleman in making his announcement said we ave been working on this for 31 years.
i presume he was talking about from 1986 to 2017. what he did not say, 31 years. mr. speaker, is in 1986 we had 30 days of public hearings on a bill. 30 days of public hearings. what he did not say is that we d 450 witnesses during those public hearings testifying about the taxes. what he did not say is that there were nearly four months of hearings on the 1986 reform bill. and what he did not say is that the ways and means committee conducted 26 days of markup. this bill has received less in seven days of markup
both bodies and in the conference. this is being rushed to judgment and the american people by substantial numbers believe this bill is not good for them. mr. collins said that he talked to a donor and the donor said don't call me again if you don't pass this tax bill. i get that. i don't know who the donor was, i don't know how rich the donor was. obviously the donor thought he had a real stake, or she, in this tax bill. we regret that we are not doing as we did in 1986, because what the majority leader did not mention either was that the 1986 bill was a bipartisan bill. with president reagan and president o'neill supporting it, with chairman rostenkowski, a democratic chair of the house ways and means committee, and a republican chair of the senate
finance committee, bob packwood from oregon, supporting the bill. it was a bipartisan bill. and what the majority leader did not mention is the 1986 bill did not add a single cent o the deficit. it was it was paid for. mr. speaker, this bill is a much lesser product than it could have been. we on this side of the aisle, mr. speaker, think we need tax reform. we're prepared to support tax reform. we believe we need to bring down the corporate rate. we believe we need to make sure that small businesses can grow and prosper and grow into large businesses. what we don't believe in, mr. speaker, is simply having a bill that advantages the best off in our country and says that the advantages we give to the middle class will be phased out in a little bit, about five years.
so, mr. speaker, we will, according to the majority leader, consider this bill next week. it will not be bipartisan. and that's a shame. it will not be positive for the country because it will put us even more deeply into debt. and the people will pay that bill -- who pay that bill ultimately will be our children. on both sides of the aisle, we don't have a lot of members on the floor, but i say to every member on the floor, every member on this floor, i'm sure at some point in time you have given a speech somewhere that said, we care about the debt. we're going to bring down the debt. this bill does not this bill does not do it. and anybody who believes that this bill is going to pay for itself through dynamic scoring and economic growth is kidding hemselves a rationalization to
vote for a vote that is political, not policy. because my republican colleagues, mr. speaker, believe if they don't pass this bill, they will lose the next election. i have heard that argument over and over and over again. that is not a reason to vote for this bill. it is a reason to say, let's go back to the table. let's include mr. neal in the consideration, the ranking member. let's include mr. wyden, the ranking member member of the senate finance committee and let's include mr. mccarthy and myself to see if we can reach a bipartisan bipartisan, constructive piece of enjoy the will support of a wide range of the
american people and their representatives. now, mr. speaker, we had an .lection yesterday in alabama mr. jones won that election. mr. strange, the incumbent republican representing alabama right now lost in the primary. he has no mandate. why rush this bill through? this bill, if it was passed on cember 31 of next year would affect the 2018 taxes that would be filed in april of 2019. the need to rush this bill, mr.
speaker, seems to be and the reason for having no hearings, the reason for having no witnesses is because this bill on its merit cannot sustain itself. now let me read you a quote, mr. speaker. i think the message of the moment is that the american people all across the country are asking us even in the most liberal state, massachusetts, to stop this health care bill. i think that means there will be more health care votes in the senate prior to the swearing in of scott brown, whenever that may be. that statement was made on nuary 20, 2010, by the president majority leader, who was then, of course, the minority leader. and his proposition was, you ought to wait until scott brown
is here so that massachusetts can have its vote counted. but hint critically, he has changed his tune today. when alabama, a very conservative state, the opposite of massachusetts, has voted to elect doug jones to the senate. and i don't hear mr. mcconnell or anybody else saying let's way for the duly elected member of senator from es abama so he can vote on this bill and negative consequences to our country. mr. speaker, i'm sure the majority leader might have some comments he wants to make. and therefore, i yield to my friend, mr. mccarthy.
mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i took note there are a lot of things said. let me make sure to get through all of them. you first mentioned many times that i did not mention and i was asked the question when we would vote on the tax bill. i answered the question. i said yes, we'll vote on it tuesday. you said you heard it could be tuesday and i wasn't asked other questions. but now that we have, let's walk through this. one of your first arguments was debt. do you realize in this pro-growth tax cutting tax bill, it pays for all of it. what is interesting, don't take my word for it. what happens every day to the market when they realize congress is one day closer to passing the tax bill.
eryone with a 401-k gets a increase. and the movement is passing the tax bill. and that's for all americans invested. everybody's retirement is getting a little better because of it. now what about on the jobs' prospective. broadcomm was created in america but left america, on the day of the announcement said we're coming back. not just that we are bringing so many jobs back, we are going to spend $3 billion a year in r&d and $6 billion in manufacturing. and that's $20 billion a year in revenue for that company that is going to pay taxes in revenue. that's a big company. you know what i just read the other day? company announcing they are
going to syracuse, new york, based upon our tax bill. yes, things are changing things in america. people are excited, but not just those who are going to hire these thousands of americans to work, i want to make sure it happens in maryland as well. so i wanted to look at your district. so here we go. my good friend represents maryland's 5th and done it for quite some time. currently you have 47% of filers in maryland 5 that take the standard did he deduction. so they will be better off because they will get a doubling the president signs it. another 11% have itemized deductions that are less than our new higher standard deduction. they will save. not only save money but save time. instead of spending weeks of trying to fill out a tax code -- you know when they fill it out, they will get money.
they don't have to wait until april 15 not only in your district but across this country. check your check come february. you know what will be in that check? more money. because the standard deduction goes up. so that's 58% of my friend's district is better off than day one. but from what you tell me, you don't think that's good enough to vote for. a majority of your district is better off on day one. that's not even talking about the small businesses. the small businesses in your district, those that are earning $400,000, they are going to save $19,000. i'm not sure -- i know we are dear friends but i'm not sure you owned a business. when i was 20, i started my first business. there are three lessons i learned, i was the first one to work and last one to leave and last one to be paid.
this is going to create nor entrepreneurship, more opportunity and more people are going to be hired. now, i know you are worried about the debt, but it just strikes me. this year, you voted for a budget, just a couple of months ago and i'm not going to go back to another congress that increased the deficit by $6.8 trillion. only worried about debt at certain times? this bill is going to grow the economy has we have watched quarter after quarter after quarter in the new administration. i have to make sure i get all of it. you talk about hearings. we had 59 public hearings. e printed it out about what we would do on tax. let's get to the core. let's say to all americans, doesn't matter where you live whether you sit on this side of the aisle, or that side of the
aisle, democrat, republican, you are an american first. let's take the average family. the average family of four making $5 -- $55,000. you know how much tax they are going to pay? zero. zero. but that still isn't good enough for you. it's very interesting in my social science study of what the party on the other side of the aisle used to say they were for. i believe in the day if you would have stood up here and said i have a tax bill to make sure the family of four making $55,000 is going to pay zero, they would be excited. you talk to me about bipartisanship. that's a question for you. bipartisanship, bipartisanship when we reach out to you about
chip, a place not to play politics, we even stopped a hearing and a markup that we had scheduled well in the future because you came to us, your side of the aisle, and asked us to because you thought you could come to an agreement and told by your leadership that no, nobody could vote for it. we put a bill that put things in the bill that we thought you would even want. but no, you still voted no. how many times have you told me on this floor, maybe it was a few months ago -- and i'll quote governmenty -- about funding. because i was concerned, because i had read some articles in the "new york times" that suggested as the minority party showing resistance in the era of president trump, the democrats are willing to let the lights of government go dark. i wanted to know if that was
true or false. you said to me, when i asked my friend whether that rumor was true, you said nobody is wanting to shut the government down. we don't want to shut the government down. you continued to say, i assure it is neither our intent or desire. matter of fact we want to work quickly to avoid that happening. that's not good obviously for the american people. it's not good for managers trying to plan on how to deliver services and it's certainly not good for our federal employees. so i want to work with you to make sure that doesn't happen. mr. speaker, that was in march, just nine months ago. and i wonder what changed in those nine months because just last week, and i tell my friend there was no partisanship inputting a continuing resolution on the floor for two weeks. there was no poison pill on this
side of the aisle. it was a clean one. and i watched sitting at this desk where the vote was going and i watched the other side. i watched people not that they just voted no, they were whipped into the position to vote no. i watched the tally. and once the tally got passed the magic number of 218, he put his thumb up because he gave the ok in his conference that were told not to vote until it passed. i just wonder what happened to bipartisanship on something that is so bipartisan. i know that thousands of federal employees you have in your district. but that is just -- i listened, mr. speaker, to the leader of the democratic party on the other side, you said just two days prior, the only person talking about the shutdown is president trump. the only person taking action and whipping to get to a
shutdown was on this floor. we have had open hearings, republican and democrat. we had an open, bipartisan, bicameral conference. they have walked through an entire bill. we've made sure the americans are going to get a tax cut and jobs are going to be created. it is already happening before the bill is even signed. i'm not sure if i didn't mention something else. because you try to correct if something was not mentioned, but i wanted to make sure i answered all those questions for you, because i know not just in your district, that every family of four making $55,000 will pay nothing, all of the small businesses that are going to hire new people. and i differ from you. maybe you whipped strongly depens like you whipped strongly against the c.r. in keeping
government open, but when i look at that tally on the tax bill, there will be some on your side. why do i think so? they told me so. the only difference at the end if they don't and keep the strong arm and releasing the thumb up once it passes and put it down, that's the only reason we won't have bipartisanship on the floor. but i believe in america and i believe in the individuals who fight so strongly to get here to represent their constituents that they know the new jobs in their district and know how much those families will save and will not politics get the best of them. they will go against the tied to stop, but they believe it will even be better. so i look forward to that day. i look forward you coming back to the quote you told me nine months ago, because you know what? it is close to christmas. we have military men and women
defending us. you talked about that bill the president recently signed that yes you worked with me that is going to make government more effective, efficient and accountable and also had a pay raise for our men and women. when you voted them, you told them you weren't getting their raise. worst, you even went further, you questioned whether they have the funds to continue to battle. we have been through shutdowns and nobody wins. i believe you what you told me nine months ago. i want you to come back. i yield back. . mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. he made a number of points. first generally, i've been here long enough to have heard the debate in the 1981 bill. the so-called supply side, jack kemp, george bush, vice president bush referred to as voodoo economics. in point of fact, as the gentleman knows, but a i'm sure
he knows the record -- because i'm sure he knolls the record, we increased the debt under ronald reagan -- knows the record, we increased the debt under ronald reagan 189%. larger than any other president with whom i've served over the last 37 years. 189%. stockman said that we knew it wasn't going to balance the budget. we just said that for political purposes. stockman said that. he was director for the o.m.b. under ronald reagan. then in 2001 and 2003 we had tax cuts. we heard the same arguments. how it's going to grow robustly the economy. and it brought in the deepest recession anybody in this chamber, other than perhaps sam johnson, who i think is probably our oldest member, because the rest of us didn't experience the depression, it
ushered in not the biggest growth rate in america, but the least job-producing eight years of any american president that i've served with. and the deepest recession that anybody in this body has experienced. nd a hemorrhaging of jobs. and in fact, the stock market, as the gentleman refers to, had a 25% decline in value over the eight years of the bush administration. with two tax cuts. where exactly the same argument for growth was made. and it didn't happen. on the other hand, i was here in 1993 when we raised taxes. not much. but a little bit. particularly for infrastructure. and the prediction, mr. leader, on your side of the aisle, we
would tank as an economy. we would have a terrible recession. exactly the opposite happened. you were dead -- not you personally, but the -- those who made that representation were 180 degrees wrong. first of all, we balanced the budget four years in a row. nobody has done that other than president clinton. you can say you were in charge of the congress. you were. and i will respond to you, why couldn't you do it under george wush bush? when you had -- george bush? when you had everything? there's no answer to that. so in terms of the experience that we've had, when we had tax cuts, the debt did in fact explode. 189% increase in the national debt. that was approximately 2 1/2 times the increase under obama and the increase under george bush. but we continued -- continue to
argue this is going to be greath for growth. no reputable -- great for growth. no reputable economist agrees with that proposition. well, you read them out to me, i'll be glad to hear them. the stock market increased under this president, it's going up. it went up 300% under barack obama. 300%. 300%. from 6,500 to over 18,000. he had the largest job production. and i told my friend, in the opposed to , as 2017, there were 279,000 more jobs created in 2016 under barack obama than have been created under this president. 279,000 more. that's not a great deal. but in terms of growth, there was more growth of jobs in 2016 when obama was president of the united states than has occurred
under donald trump. check the records. i'm sure you'll review my -- let's see if hoyer's just giving us some malarkey. the gentleman talks about this great tax benefit. what he didn't mention, and what i was referring to by the way, was when you were giving the schedule. not in response to the question. but that aside, doesn't mention the state and local tax. i'm not sure exactly what's happened to state and local taxes. but in my state it will have a very substantial negative effect. why? because we have a significant income tax. why? because we think that's a progressive tax. and puts the burden on those who have more. you may disagree with that. have a flat tax, no matter what you have. pay the same thing. i'm not sure exactly what you've done -- shutdown, you talk about.
you had 90 people vote against a c.r. that you recommended they vote for in september, which was a clean c.r. you would not have passed that c.r., you would have shut down government. you're responsible for keeping government open. you being your party. you're in the majority. the only reason that c.r. passed was because we voted for it. you had 906 your people vote against it. 9 -- 90 of your people vote against it. 90. who apparently didn't want to pay the military. didn't want to protect them overseas. that proposition, like they say , won't hunt. because the chairman of the armed services committee voted against that c.r. why? because he thought it was harmful to the national security of our country. secretary mattis believes the c.r. is damaging. so don't -- it is inappropriate in my view when we do something and says we don't like this
bill. and the only party with whom i've served, who is consciously, purposefully shut down -- who has consciously, purposefully shut down the government, i tell my friend, mr. speaker, is the republican party. they did it in 1995 under newt gingrich. with y did it last year mr. cruz coming over here and saying shut down the government unless they repeal the a.c.a. shut it down. consciously. we have never done that. have we had to shut down because we couldn't get agreement? we've done that for a few days. but for 16 days, you cut it down consciously. and when you voted to open up the government, guess who voted against it? mr. mulvaney, the director of the o.m.b. he voted against opening up government. i guess he was against the armed forces. i guess he was against defending our country. that's your proposition.
schip. you're right. you waited. we didn't get an agreement. but we waited long after 9:30 when the gentleman says he's very concerned about funding it. the authorization expired. you passed ultimately a bill that we didn't vote for. you passed it on your own. if you really were that concerned, you would have passed it before the bill authorization expired, september 30. we passed it some weeks later. and we passed it with a piece of funding in there that's going to undermine, for instance, this is one example, vaccination for children. because you funded it in part by reducing substantially the prevention fund, which seeks to prevent illness. on bipartisanship. very frankly, we had a two-week
c.r. the only thing you've worked on from our perspective is the tax bill. and you did not include us in those discussions. you had closed hearings. we had a conference hearing yesterday. mr. neal tried to move an amendment out of order. wasn't accepted. it was a done deal. done deal in secret. i told my friend, i re-read a little bit of "young guns request "-- "young guns" last night. talk about transparency, talk about openness. talk about doing things one at a time. not packaging a lot of bills. the reason we all hate c.r. seas because nobody knows what's in a c. -- c.r.'s is because nobody knows what's in a c.r. and this c.r. is loaded down with numerous, and we're talking about tax bill, but the c.r. that the gentleman talked out is five or six major pieces of legislation put in one package.
take it or leave it. that's not the way to run this organization. and that's what you guys said in "young guns" and i agree with you. but it's not what you've done. it's what you said. but it's not what you've done. let me just close on this side, and frankly i was going to talk about the crrment r., but i'm talking -- c.r., but i'm talking about it now. we don't have a budget caps deal. today's the 12th. 13th. 14th. , we are essentially 15 days 17 days from the end of the year. we don't have a caps deal. we don't have a disaster supplemental. for texas, florida, puerto rico and the virgin islands. that's proposed to be in this c.r., as i understand it. and the fires in california. the gentleman's absolutely correct. we're going to support helping
the folks of california who have been devastated by these fires. the gentleman's absolutely correct. we don't have any on -- anything on dreamers. we think that's critically important. i said to the majority leader, four months ago, that we felt this was critically important and we needed to get this done. i think, as i've said to the gentleman, we have over 300 votes on this floor for a bill to get this done. the alexander murray, i don't think -- i don't know, i haven't seen the conference report. but alexander murray, which tries to stabilize the availability of health care at a reasonable price to the american people, i don't think that's in the tax bill, as i understand it. v.a. choice funding i think is in the c.r. i haven't seen exactly what it says. opioids funding, i have a thing in my district, in every district in america opioids is a critical crisis. there's no funding in c.r. as i
understand for that. a fire grants program for our emergency responders. no money for that. perkins loans, nothing for that. the debt limit is going to come later. national flood insurance program, nothing for that, as i understand it. medicare and other health extenders. 702 of fisa, to keep america secure and strong and safe. as i understand it none of that's being dealt with. so the reason we voted against the last c.r. is because we're tired of kicking things down the road. we're tired of kicking the can down the road. we want to get to agreement on a bipartisan basis to pass legislation that's positive for our country. and that's why we may vote against this next c.r. because we ought to stop just kicking the can down the road. and we're going to kick the can, as i understand it, down the road at some point in time until january 19 is the iscussion.
mr. leader, mr. speaker, we're prepared to sit down and try to reach agreement on these issues that have got to be reached. and if we don't reach them, america will be less safe. less secure. less healthy. as an economy, and less healthy literally in terms of making sure that the health care available to america is on a stable path. so, mr. speaker, i will yield to the majority leader and then make a few comments and then we'll close. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. i do look forward to these colloquies. i first want to make sure history has it right. 137 economists sent a letter to congress supporting our tax reform effort and saying it will accelerate growth. i don't know if you disease like these 137. but these are -- dislike these
137. but these are economists. i don't judge the difference. history says president obama added more than $8 trillion to the national debt. now, how does that measure against all the others? well, that's more than 43 prior presidents combined. that's what history shows. my friend is correct, he's been here much longer than i have. . you actually had the majority in 40 years. you didn't balance the budget. there was a common denominator. had to fight for it to get there. you raised some other issues. you brought an issue up for a number of days. i don't think we should waste any time. you brought an issue up of we don't have ar cap agreement to be able to work forward.
wasn't you, but it was your leader on the other side who decided not to go to a meeting at the white house. you said we should not waste our time on the floor. wasn't this side, but we did take up time on this floor to impeach the president. we took that time up on the floor. we didn't take time up for chip and the others. i do remember the quote from my friend. we differ sometimes fill could havically. philosophically. i admire principle. i watch you and what you have stood for years and maybe your party has a different position. you don't hide from it. and you vote that way. and you will stand and oppose me
because of what you said in the past and what you said you would do. but this is not something new. you have always said funding our government is not a game. when one side wins and the other side loses, shutdown is not a political football to be tossed around so casually. i was personally shocked last week. i wondered what would have happened as i watched your operation whip people to a no. as we watched the time click, as you watched, you held those who stood by the voting booth who wanted to vote yes, but could not. had we not gotten enough votes to keep government open, which your side of the aisle applauded, what your side of the aisle thought they won.
there were 90 members on this side of the aisle that didn't vote for a c.r., but you, like myself, understand a c.r. is usually the responsibility of both, because it's bipartisan. no one is getting anything and no one wants an end to that position. we don't want to be in a c.r. that's why we came so many times to you in the past when it comes to chip. i understand sometimes people can use it for politics and maybe push it to the end and get an advantage on something else. we wanted an agreement and that's why staff of the four leaders have been meeting. what do they do next? let's go to the white house because the white house has been in those meetings at the same time because the president has to sign the bill, the senate, the house and leaders on both sides. but when that meeting came just a few short weeks ago, wouldn't show up.
and i take you at your word that you are willing to sit down. the rest of your leadership has to be willing to sit down, too. but this idea that we want to hold government hostage, so many times i have heard you in the past say that was wrong. you ask about the things that haven't been done. the thing i love the most, i elieve -- you have to be honest. and i'll share them with you, because i want us to be judged. i want us to know where we are and not where we said we are going to be, we should work harder. i took the first congress of very new congress. when you read the "young guns" book and i don't want to cause any ethic issues and i don't get
any money, i give it to the veterans -- i don't know if it's in print. but i want the bills to come through committee. that's where the open public process is and that's where amendments are won or lost. more bills in the first congress since h.w. bush, have gone through committee. let's measure how many bills have gotten off this floor. do you realize more bills have been passed out of this congress than any congress in the first term of a president in modern history back to h.w. bush? and we did it by going through a transparent, open process, exactly what we pledged we would do in that book. so yes, i'm glad you read it and i'm glad you took the words and i would love to show you the graphs. let's walk back to this. government funding is important. and let's talk about it.
here are the facts. by mid-july all 12 appropriation bills passed both subcommittee and full question. that was july. on july 27th, we passed the four appropriation bills off the house floor, which provided for critical national security. now my friend and nearly all the democrats, they voted no. on september 14, we passed the remaining eight appropriation bills off this floor. now my friend and nearly all the democrats voted no. but the most disappointing vote as i mentioned was last week on december 7, to fund the government. my friend and democrats all voted no. when i was young and i didn't always get my way, i would go to my parents and i would complain.
but it's really odd that we got to this floor in a different nature that someone would complain about something not getting done and never voting for anything. i like my friend. i want my friend who for decades has talked about not to play games with the funding of government. i don't know where you have gone, but i want you to come back. i think america needs you back. that leadership will be important for both sides. and i would tell you, i would have been disappointed in you if i watched you applaud if you were successful in shutting down government, because i know that's not the man you are. i know that's not the person and principles for what you stand for. and you know what? all those votes you go back and said this side of the aisle didn't vote for, i stood and voted for those, because leadership is different. we do take votes that are
tougher than others. we do have to put politics aside. we do have to look out for the best of this country. it may not be the mood of the politics on tv that maybe wants to fight more or throw another motion on the floor to impeach, but there is a time that we should rise above. and i think going into the end of this year, we should think anew and act anew. i think america should not see a christmas because one side of the aisle wanted to shut it down. not for any other reason they voted no on all the bills that would have kept it open. you had a cause, you had a had a big if you desire, you would have shown up to the meeting to actually get the answer. we could have a cap deal. we could be done with it. we could make sure our men and women get the raise they deserve and we could make sure that those in theater have every opportunity to be able to carry
out their mission that we asked them to do and in the safest manner possible. that's what i want to see. yield back. mr. hoyer: come back, shane. many of you aren't old enough to remember that wonderful money as little de off and the boy, come back, shane. i haven't gone anywhere. democrats have no ability to shut down the government on the floor of this house. hear me. we don't have the votes to shut down government. and we don't want to shut down government. and maybe the leader also wants those 90 of his -- he's not our leader, he's the leader of the
ma the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. party and 90 of his people did not follow him. i presume he must be much more concerned about that, with all due respect, he's my friend, but not my leader. and we voted to give 90 days and nothing was accomplished in that 90 days other than work on a tax bill that we think is a disaster for this country. nothing. and he talks about passing these appropriation bills. we knew they wouldn't pass the senate. and we told him so. and we said let's do it on a bipartisan basis. but no, and by the way, mr. speaker, it was the least regular order prior to an omnibus on dealing with appropriation bills than i have ever seen. they packaged four or five, and
then the balance of eight. we didn't consider them individually. we didn't have an opportunity to consider thoughtfully. o, it was one big package. i said i read that book. it was anything but regular order. by the way, mr. speaker, the majority party that passed them is the majority in the united states senate, and not a single one of those bills, not a single one has passed out of the house -- excuse me, the senate. not a single one has gone to the president of the united states. not one. and the republicans are in charge of the house and the senate. not a single bill has gone to the president of the united states. and harry reed is not there. now what it would have taken to
pass some of those appropriation bills in the senate is some compromise. and that didn't happen. so don't ring your hands about how bad it is that we haven't had bipartisanship on the appropriation bills. we haven't. or bipartisanship on the c.r. when you lose 90 of your people. 90 republicans voted against a simple c.r. you said simple c.r., nothing to be bipartisan. 90 of your people voted no. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: let's make sure we are growing apples to apples. that had a debt ceiling in it. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, does that mean 90 of your people did not want to pay the bills of the united states and default on our debt? and i yield to my friend.
mr. mccarthy: i thank my friend for yielding. if you are going to compare a c.r. that is simple, it's not simple. if you compare it to the c.r. you voted against that had no debt ceiling on it. you explained to me how many c.r.'s you voted in the past, how democrats came over with republicans, because you know what? you and i both know that's how it works. because a c.r. is not an advantage for one or the other. and this is what i'm most upset with. our founding fathers created a body that could have compromise. but for some reason in today's society, it's not just that you want one side to win, you want to crush the other side. that's actually hurting the american public. so in a situation that we know of a continuing resolution is going to be short-term, two weeks, yeah, i would expect half of the votes to come from our side and half the votes come
from ours. that is what has happened in the past. i'm wondering where that went. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. mr. leader, let me say to you very respectfully, do not expect cooperation from our side if we don't get cooperation from your side, if we don't get some inclusion in making decisions. we are 194 members of this body. from time to time, you and i do work together and when we work together, we get majorities, we pass pieces of legislation. you have not passed a single controversial fiscal bill on this bill on this floor without our substantial help until last week. on that last 230 bill. but let me tell you, the reason we voted against it because we knew what was going to happen, nothing. there would be no agreement on chip. there is no agreement on chip. there will be no agreement on
fisa. there has been no agreement on facea. there would be no agreement on flood control. there has been no agreement on flood control. so we knew that we were not going to get any bipartisan buy-in so all we were doing is delaying the inevitable. you remember the homeland security bill. you said we're going to meet tomorrow and we reached an agreement and we passed it. very frankly, you have never heard us say that as a policy, in order to get the a.c.a. repealed or gingrich wanted to get some fiscal thing done, that we would shut down the government, three times you shut it down in 1995 and 1996, three times. intentionally. that was your policy. and, yes, if you're going to take the government hostage and force us to do something that
we think is inimical to the best interest of this country, yes, mr. leader, you will leave us with no other option. to pretend that we're keeping government moving, but not getting any agreement. i talked to you very sincerely four months ago about one of the things that we wanted to get done before the end of this year, were dreamers. protected. who are now vulnerable and very scared. that they're going to be sent back to someplace they do not know. have not lived in. brought here as children through no fault of their own. gone to elementary school. junior high school. high school. college. served in the military. working at jobs. been vetted to make sure that they haven't done anything wrong. they're afraid of being sent back home. not back home. excuse me. i say that. that's not their home. this is their home. and nothing's been done on that. i know you have a task force, talked about it. but we haven't done anything.
there's no reason why we can't. i think we have 300 votes on this floor to get that done. mr. mccarthy: may i respond? mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: the gentleman is correct. there are many times we've worked together. from sanction from homeland from others. we -- from sanction, from homeland, from others. we work very well together. but the gentleman knows, i came to you about chip. when the committee was directed on your side of the aisle not to do anything with the majority party. so i came to you. ecause of our history. mr. hoyer: i don't know who the gentleman is relying on for that information but i'll tell you, i've talked to mr. pallone. that is not correct. i don't know who you think directed him not to reach an agreement, but i will tell you, after you made that assertion, i think last week or the week before, i went to mr. pallone, i asked him that. he said absolutely not. i yield back. mr. mccarthy: well --
mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i came to you. it was under my impression that a member came to me and said that. maybe that's not true. but i said, you know what, let's get together and let's work this out. i don't want to make chip partisan in any shape or form. and we met and we tried to work and you came back to me and said, you got to go it alone. i said, that's not how i want to do it. so what we did was we took everything we heard from the hearings, i even in good faith, the chairman of that committee, greg walden, stopped a markup. in the hopes, because you requested, not you, but your ranking member, that they weren't prepared, that they wanted more time. so we want to do everything in our power. but at the end of the day you couldn't be there. and twice your side of the aisle and yourself voted against chip. you can't argue against it now. you voted against it. and when you talk about appropriations, i'm very proud what have we did on
appropriations. we haven't been able to do that in quite some time. but there were in those first four bills, every single one of those 12 bills went through subcommittee and full committee. there was 126 amendments in the first four. there were 342. mr. hoyer: let me reclaim my time and then yield back to you. is the gentleman proud that you control the house, you control the senate, and you haven't sent a single appropriation bill to the president? i yield. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. mr. hoyer: not a single one. not one. mr. mccarthy: that's why i want you to join with me and get the senate to move. as the gentleman knows, you don't control the senate when you have 51 or 52 members. because you know what happens? it takes 60. i don't firmly believe in that. but that's the way they play it over in the senate. that is why when you don't have a cap agreement, that you need all four leaders to go to the white house, but when the two won't show up, the best thing to do is don't show up and don't complain. i don't have an agreement. the best way to complain is, get all 12 votes, all 12 bills
off this floor, with the simple majority. if that's good enough for america inside congress, it should be good enough on the senate side. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. mr. mccarthy: unfortunately that's not the case. your side is able to hold it up and i'm ashamed of that as well. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. what it would have meant, you would have had a compromise. that's why the senate has that 60-vote rule. i'm not crazy about it myself. but that's why they have the 60-vote rule. and they think it's good. because that's why they've kept it. they think it's good because it requires compromise. it requires agreement. it requires moving ahead on a piece of legislation. and i will tell you, i served on the appropriations committee for 23 years and we reached agreement between republicans and democrats on almost every bill. and when we had the bills, they weren't partisan bills. and they got a lot of republican votes. almost always. when we were in charge. not all the time. almost always. and if you are a party enough
compromise, you can't move things in the united states senate. i get that. but that's the reason. that's the reason. because you couldn't reach compromise. now, very frankly, a lot of the bills have come out of committee. you know why they came out of committee? ecause they were bipartisan. but they haven't been brought to the floor by mr. mcconnell and they haven't been sent to the president of the united states. so, crocodile tears. and yes, you passed those 12 bills. just like you can pass the c.r.'s. on your own. without any help from us. and if the government schutz down, it is because you can't get -- shuts down, it is because you can't get the majority of your party to pass bills. you're in charge. mr. mccarthy: i ask the gentleman to yield. mr. hoyer: i still have the time. i'm going to yield to you. there is no doubt when we were in charge and you didn't support us, we passed every
piece of legislation we wanted to pass on this floor with 218 democrats. we were united as a party. we lost some. but never enough to make it that we didn't get 218. you lost 90. you could say it was on the debt. you could say it was on national security. you can say whatever you want on it. you brought a bill to the floor and 90 of your people voted against it. to keep government open, to keep government operating. and very frankly we voted with you so that we could get some work done. and we haven't gotten work done. that's what frustrates us. that's what frustrates the american people. and i will tell my friend, at the end of the day, after this congress is gone, historians are not going to be kind. notwithstanding the fact you say you passed so many bills. you passed so many bills on a partisan basis and you used essentially the 51 votes because you didn't want to compromise. we get it. you don't want to compromise. you don't want to work with us. you didn't have any hearings on
this tax bill. you didn't -- we were not included in any phase of the marking up and fashioning of this tax bill. i'm about ready to yield back the balance of my time. i'm sure everybody who wants to give a one-minute or a special order is very happy to hear that. but i'll yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: thank you. the gentleman is correct about compromise. but there is a real big difference between compromise and obstruction. mr. hoyer: and what? mr. mccarthy: to obstruct. when you talked about the senate. it takes 60 votes to even get onto a bill. i know as well as my friend that you can utilize the senate and the leadership in the house to stop something if you want to. and i will tell my friend that i am disappointed. what will you say to the 62,000 ? what will you say to the 62,000 federal employees who live in your district?
what will you say to them that every quote you made in the past, that you should not play games with funding and shutting down the government, you may think you can make that statement here, your leader may think that she can say that only the president was talking about a shutdown. -- resident whipped one whipped a vote to stay open. history won't be kind. yes, we will come to a conclusion next week. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. mccarthy: every time you ask about a vote -- mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? reclaiming my time. does the gentleman remember president trump saying a good shutdown will be good for government? did you remember him saying that? when you tell me about how he's been down here lobbying -- he said, quote, a good shutdown may be good for government. i dwreeled my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank my friend for yielding. i understand what his words said. i also watched his actions. i also watched what he did last
week. to get members to vote to keep it open because you know what? things did change. there was not compromise. even though the bill was a compromise. because there was no poison pill in it. maybe we look back, if we're going carry everything ourselves, maybe we should put something in. but it was a compromise. but unfortunately it changed or the -- on the other side. he decided -- you decided now is the time to shut the government down. try to make blame to somebody else. the american people will see through that. and i will guarantee that you 62,000 people who work for the federal government in the maryland fifth district will not take as an answer. -- take that as an answer. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i would again reiterate the majority party can do whatever it wants on this floor. it could have kept government
open, it could have kept policies moving with its votes. time after time after time on critical issues confronting this country, they couldn't come up with a majority. as a matter of fact, on one occasion mr. mccarthy was the whip, mr. cantor was the majority leader, mr. boehner was the speaker. and they offered a bill to keep government moving. they only got 84 of their colleagues, approximately 1/3, 1/3 of their colleagues on their side of the aisle to vote with them. i don't want to hear about us shutting down government. we can't shut down government. they're in charge. the majority has the votes. you can do whatever you want. we get it. we may not like it any more than you liked it. but we get it. but we voted on the hope that we would get some work done.
we haven't moved anyplace except on the tax bill. which we think is bad for this country. in the last 90 days since we passed -- and we passed, it would not have passed without us, that c.r. and, yes, we will not be helds who tafpblgt and, yes, we will oppose -- -- hostage. and, yes, we will oppose what we think is a very, very bad tax bill and we think is an effort to avoid getting the work of this house done. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would remind members to direct their remarks to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy, seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow. and further, when the house adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on monday, december 18, 2017, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.
the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gianforte: mr. speaker, america lost a hero this week and i lost a friend. tim frable trained at malstrom air force base in montana and flew missions in a p-51 over japan during world war ii. during one mission, he had to ditch in the pacific and he and a wingmate floated for days before being rescued. tim was my science teacher in junior high school. he told his ocean rescue story in a five -- in five-minute installments at the end of class each day.
because of his story telling, no one missed class. tim loved montana. in 1976 he brought me and 17 other classmates from pennsylvania to red lodge, to hike in the back country. we hiked black canyon lake, grasshopper glacier, froze to death plateau, and another plateau. tim had tremendous impact on many lives in his 93 years. including my own. i'll always be grateful for his service to our country and for his dedication as a teacher. i will miss my friend, tim frable. thank you, mr. speaker. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it is with profound sorrow that i rise to pay tribute to a dear friend and an extraordinary leader, mayor ed lee, mayor of san
francisco. all who knew mayor lee understood him to be a true gentleman of great warmth, positivity and kindness. his passing is not only a tragic loss, official loss, for our city, but also an immense personal loss for all who were fortunate enough to call him friend. mayor lee's first priority was always the people. lee's strong morale compass was rooted in his identity as a hardworking son of an immigrant family of modest means and was guided by his years as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer. ed lee fundamentally understood the strength of a community is measured by its success in meeting the needs of all of its people. he knew the rhythms and workings of san francisco at the most grand lar level and dedicated decades to improving the lives of san francisco. as mayor lee served with exceptional dignity and great effectiveness, his leadership
helped drive the city into a strong economic expansion. his firm commitment to equality made progress for affordable housing and a living wage for all. his unwavering belief in justice helped combat homelessness in san francisco, particularly for our veterans. and his bold hopeful vision for the future further secured san francisco's role as a model city for the nation. mayor san a legacy that francisco will eny. the people will tell of his wisdom and the congregation will sing his praise. he never had an unkind word for anyone and no one ever had an unkind word for him. we think of the person that ed lee was and we smile. he took great pride serving as mayor. t american-asian
the city owes a debt of gratitude to his wife and his two daughters for sharing this exceptional person with us. may deepest love and prayers are with his family and so many people throughout the world mourn with them and continue to be inspired by him. and i'm pleased in our congressional record statement we are joined by so many members of congress from the california delegation and from the asian-pacific caucus as well. i thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today because i am excited. for the first time in decades, i can dare to hope that we will not crush our children's future with debt. as our house and senate colleagues work hard to shape the details of a final bill, we
can see the goal line. we will lower rates across the board for hard-working taxpayers in all brackets. we will provide relief to small businesses and farms throughout our nation so america can compete and win. we will simplify the tax code and shouldn't need an army of lawyers and accountants. americans deserve a tax code where everyone plays by the same rules and a code that protects a lifetime of savings. mr. speaker, i urge all members, let's work together, let's give america the healthy economy it deserves. let's all support the tax cut and jobs act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for ne minute.
mr. payne: mr. speaker, children's health is not a partisan issue, eas a human issue. nfertlgs the majority party let the children's health insurance program expire months ago. as a result, states across the country are going to be forced to terminate millions of underserved children's only lifeline to a doctor. rather than working with democrats, the republican leadership passed a bill that would extend chip, but strip ealth coverage from as many as 668,000 american children. partisanship has poisonned this well. mr. speaker, nearly 231,000 children in new jersey rely on chip to get them to the doctor. many more people in my state rely on community health centers, medicare and the
affordable care act prevention fund to stay healthy. congress must protect these programs. i urge my colleagues to pass a bill before the end of the year to extend the funding for these critically important health care programs including chip and community health centers without taking health care away from more than half a million americans. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to call on my colleagues in congress to quickly pass a five-year extension of the children's health insurance program. in iowa, 85,000 children rely on chip for their health. this is very important to so many families in our 3rd district. i'm grateful a short-term
solution was included as part of the continuing resolution passed last week. on november 3, the house passed funding to pass chip with every iowa representative. however since that time, we have been waiting for our colleagues in the senate to act. they need to act now. we must work together to fund this bipartisan program. the health of our children is at stake. children of low and middle income families will be hit the hardest if we do not fully fund chip. if families are left without coverage and access to needed medical coverage to our children, we must act. i urge my colleagues to include an extension for chip and the important bills that we are considering in the weeks ahead because families shouldn't be worried about losing coverage for their children. as congress works on the most important issues facing our
country, i and other colleagues will continue to support this. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> my good friend timothy bradford passed away last week. mr. davis: he was a commissioner of the cook county metropolitan water reclamation district but much more than that. tim grew up on the west side of the city of chicago and moved to the south suburbs and became known as the godfather of politics in south suburban cook county. he was in love with everybody he met, involved in everything that existed, and i express condolences to his wife and family on his passing. and i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: the liberal media help elect a u.s. senator from alabama. their alliance with the democratic party is now so ose, we should call them mediacrats. they got an assist from some republicans as well as the candidate himself. the primary lesson to be learned from the election is that republicans must confront media bias. they must constantly point it out and remind the american people of its could rose i have effect on our election process. republicans should join the president in exposing fake news. the media should trust the american people with the facts, not tell them what to think. because the media are so biased, the credibility with the american people is at an all-time low.
for the sake of our country and sake of fair elections, i hope the media will return to their paramount responsibility providing the american people with unbiased news. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. >> donald trump claims he has nothing to do with russia but we have seen secret meetings, business and financialening tanglements and elaborate attempts to conceal information. in any other era these would be bombshell. but our media cycle by trump's infusion of drama makes it hard to connect the dots.
there is so much, it makes your head spin. today i'm beginning a moment of truth series of speeches to point out facts that show an administration that is compromised, that not only col lewded with russia and keep us from knowing the truth. one of the smoking guns when trump's associate was seeking financing from a russian bank facing american sanctions to build a trump tower in moscow. from saider to trump's personal attorney. we'll get donald elected. there is a lot more to come, mr. speaker. but for now, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are refrained to engage in ersonalities towards the president. further one-minutes?
>> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized or one minute. >> mr. speaker -- ms. jackson lee: i rise today to pay tribute and to commemorate the sad 5th anniversary of the sandy hook elementary school shooting which took the libes of 20 innocent children and six brave educators. last night, i stood on the floor of the house and indicated how breathless i felt when the news came in. one child, two children, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. 18 123, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 20 children and the mother of perpetrator. and i rise today to join in the
call for acts of kindness. tomorrow i will be giving out oks at the an a elementary school and giving out shoes. i hope we understand that it's not about guns, people kill. guns kill. i would ask that we have real gun safety legislation. at the same time, i hope as we look toward the needs of our nation, the children's health insurance program and those who are suffering from hurricanes will be part of our kindness. but i take a moment for these children. amen. i thank you for allowing me to honor the sandy hook children and the brave adults that tried to save their lives. may god bless them all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further one-minute requests?
under the speaker's annoyanced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from virginia, mr. garrett, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. garth zpwart 47 years ago -- mr. garrett: 47 years ago august 11, baby boy was born named brian terry. 18 years after that, brian made a commitment to serve his country by enlisting in the united states marine corps where he served three years honorably including a tour of duty in harm's way in iraq. discharged from the marine corps honorably in 1994, pry and terry followed his calling to serve by becoming a police officer. and then made another commitment
again not to serve our community but in our nation in 2007 he joined the customs and border patrol. but this wasn't good enough as his mother said he was a strong defender. joined the elite tactical team. seven years ago, he was tasked with pursuing and apprehending a rip crew. this rip crew is alleged to have been affiliated with the drug cartels and what they did was exploit those who took advantage of the unwillingness of those in leadership in this country to perform that basic principled responsibility which is to secure our borders. the rip crew would rob drug mules as they carried drugs across the borders but they would detain and shake down those who snuck through our
pourous borders. this rip crew had weapons and used those weapons to rob and terrorize and exploit in the worst possible ways people who were invited here. seven years ago today brian terry and three of his colleagues set out not just to protect our border but to protect innocent people who came with their entire life savings because we chose to leave that border pourous. . . h.r. 4433 is called scuring d.h.s. firearms act of 2017. we learned during testimony on this bill that in a two-year period, roughly 200, just over 2 hub firearms were stolen from people who worked for the department of homeland security. or lost. at least one p