this rule allows for the debate to happen and a vote to happen. it allows congress to do its job, providing oversilent of the executive branch -- oversight of the executive branch. if contempt vote passes, it will place the issue into federal court. it will be up to them to decide if we're accurate or offbase. let the court decide that. that's the appropriate step because that's where the dispute between these two branches is supposed to reside. the judicial branch is the arbitrator between the executive branch and the legislative branch when it comes to issues like this. that's how our three-branch system works. we should let the process takes place. i support this rule and i urge my colleagues to do the same. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, and i yield myself

such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, welcome to witch-hunt week here in the united states house of representatives. our economy is slowly recovering. slower than any of us would like. millions of unemployed americans have been left behind because their unemployment benefits have expired. our immigration system is broken. millions of americans are living in poverty because they don't earn enough to make ends meet. and we have a pay equity issue where women on average earn less than men for doing the same job. i mean, climate change is a real issue and getting worse. and so what is the response from the house republican leadership? a jobs bill? no. a fully funded transportation bill? no. an extension of long-term unemployment benefits? no. comprehensive immigration reform? no. an increase of the minimum wage? no way. a pay equity bill?

no. a sensible energy policy? no. of course not. not from this leadership. you know, when it comes to jobs economy, my he republican friends have no ideas. and here's the deal. they're afraid the american people are going to figure this out and so what do they do? they create distractions and diversions, more investigations, more investigations. mr. speaker, instead of tackling the issues that actually matter to people, house republicans are once again playing to cheap seats with hyperpartisan political witch-hunts. now, this rule before us today contains two bills. one would hold lois lerner, the former director of the i.r.s., exempt organizations in contempt of congress. the other would appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting of conservative groups by the i.r.s. and that's just today. the house republican leadership will be doubling down on the crazy later this week by

creating a select committee to exploit the tragedy of benghazi. it's shameful. this is ridiculous. the i.r.s. clearly oversteps in a way they identified and targeted nonprofit groups. no one debates. that's not an issue for debate. but an issue of this magnitude and importance, potential abuse by the internal revenue service deserves to be handled in a bipartisan and professional manner. that standard has not been achieved during these investigations. i say these investigations, pleural, because multiple -- plural, because multiple committees have spent years looking into this. from nearly the beginning, republicans have operated on their own and not in a bipartisan and professional manner. to date, 39 witnesses have been interviewed. more than 530,000 pages of documents have been reviewed. and the i.r.s. has spent at least $14 million of taxpayer money cooperating with all

these requests and all these investigations. and what do we have to show for all the work? we had a circus in the committee of government reform and oversight. a circus. we have seen chairman issa literally cut the mic while ranking member cummings was speaking. in all my years as a member of congress, as a staff member, i never saw such behavior in a committee before. ever. and during this investigation we've seen over 30 legal experts come together and state that chairman issa's contempt proceedings, one of the bills that we're considering here today, are constitutionally deficient. in other words, more than 30 legal experts, both democrats and republicans, and also including former house counsels, believe the courts would throw this contempt resolution out of court. now, of course, chairman issa is entitled to his own opinion, but we cannot just ignore the legal opinions of more than 30

legal experts, including two former house counsels. ranking member cummings had a great idea or sensible idea that i can't quite understand why my friends on the other side hasn't accepted it. he said, let's hold a hearing with many of these legal experts and get to the bottom of why they feel chairman issa's actions are deficient. but chairman issa nicked that quickly. said no hearings. this is the oversight committee. this is the committee that is supposed to be nonpartisan when you think about it. i mean, the investigations are upposed to have some credibility. but chairman issa nicks that. in fact, he's refusing to hold such a hearing. it actually just baffles me. if chairman issa firmly believes this contempt resolution has merit and has legal standing, then what is the harm in holding a hearing in considering these legal experts' opinions? the truth is that chairman issa, the republican leadership, really do not care about doing this fairly and they never have.

this is an exercise in political theater designed for the conservative media closed information loop. mr. speaker, speaking truth to power is important. investigating abuses of power is even more important, but abusing the process in the name of investigating abuse is wrong . we've been down this road before. we've seen this kind of witch-hunt steam rolled through this very capital, but not even joseph mccarthy was able to strip away an american citizen's constitutional rights under the fifth amendment. as chairman issa is trying to do. the congressional research service found that the last time congress tried to hold witnesses in contempt after they asserted their fifth amendment right not to testify was in the 1950's and 1960's and senator joseph mccarthy's committee, the house on american activities committee, and others. in nearly every case, the juries refused to convict or federal courts overturned those

convictions. this exercise that we are engaged in today is nearly identical to the actions of senator mccarthy. it was wrong then. it is wrong now. this is sad because it demeans this house of representatives. it may be red meat for the extreme right wing, but for too many americans it adds to the cynicism that this is a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. mr. speaker, the i.r.s. is a powerful agency. can be ode itself either daunting or beneficial, depending on where you sit. the i.r.s. and the code can be used to help people, like through the eitc, the child tax credit, and the r&d tax secret credits, or it can be used punitively as it was during the nixon administration. the i.r.s. dund the obama administration must be held to -- the i.r.s. under the obama administration must be held to a high standard. in fact, the hearings --

depositions and investigations held to date actually show that there was no white house involvement in this case. none. you know, the problem here is that the narrative that my republican friends have doesn't fit the facts and they're frustrated, so they want to kick the ball down the court and more committees, more investigations, more special counsels. maybe they'll find something. in addition, these hearings that were held, these depositions and investigations show that the targeting of nonprofit groups by the i.r.s. to conservative groups. unfortunately, this whole process is so political that my friends, the republicans on the oversight committee, intentionally limited the scope of what they are focused on to ust conservative groups. doesn't matter what happened to progressive groups. the truth is that liberal -- both liberal and conservative groups were targeted. that's a fact that's conveniently left out of the argument and accusations posed

by my friends on the republican side. mr. speaker, i understand what the republicans are trying to do here. it's crystal clear. they do not want to talk about the issues that matter to people. from the economy to the environment to immigration. they don't want to talk about those issues because the majority of americans -- majority of the american people disagree with them. they don't want to talk about these issues because they have no ideas. nothing. nothing to offer. they don't even want to talk about obamacare anymore now that eight million americans have health coverage. they don't know what to do now, so they're coming up with these desperate attempts to try to create distractions. so this is what -- this is what they're left with. sad little scraps of political nonsense that they keep trying to peddle as leadership. mr. speaker, this rule and resolution are colossal wastes of time. they do nothing. they do nothing at all to try to ensure that the i.r.s. is about politics. they do nothing at all to try

to achieve any kind of justice or truth. i urge my colleagues to vote no and to get on with the business of actually solving real problems that affect real americans. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. nugent: mr. speaker, it's amazing that those on the other side of the aisle would say this is trivial. this impacted american citizens , and i won't disagree that it may have impacted those on the left. but to a greater extent, it impacted those on the right. and to americans, one of the most powerful organizations there are in america is the i.r.s. they can instill fear into your heart when you get that letter. so when you have one that does something that is so outrageous as what they've done, it's not trivial.

at least not to the people i represent. mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. i'm reminded of a passage in the bible. if you can see a speck of sawdust in your neighbor's eye but not a plank in your own. isn't it amazing that we have to go to a resolution to restore the american people their faith and trust that they are quickly losing in a government because we will not finish the job? we will continue to back peddle. we'll try to put the spotlight someplace else. this is not gender spever. this is not party specific. this has nothing to do with anything other than honesty and truth. to sit here and say something that doesn't really exist, oh, they're trying to put the spotlight on something else. we came here and took a pledge, it's not just a pledge, and it's not just a responsibility. it is an obligation to get to the truth. when we have to have a

resolution asking the chief law enforcement officer of the country to appoint a special committee, how far have we fallen in the eyes of the people that we represent? is there an issue here? yes, there is. are there things that have to be settled? yes, there is. a year ago on may 10 i was 65. this saturday i will be 66. i've learned more about myself in the last year than the american people have learned about what the i.r.s. has done to them. this covers all americans. this is not a republican issue. this is not a democrat issue, a libry tarian or an independent -- libritarian or an independent issue. when we get to defending the people we represent becomes secondary to a political agenda, then we have fallen far from where we're supposed to be. in this great house, so much has been decided on policy for the american people. isn't it time to restore their faith and confidence in this body and why we would sit back and scratch our heads and say,

i don't know why our approval rating is so low, maybe if we just answered the questions and answers them truthfully and we were truly transparent the american people wouldn't cast doubts on who it is they elected to represent them. i applaud this issue, and i applaud this resolution. be it resolved that we will restore to the american people the trust and faith and confidence they have to have in their form of government. please, talk about political maneuvering. we're making balloon animals and trying to tell people this is what you need to look at. don't worry we've taken away your personal freedoms and your personal liberties. this is not the issue. this november we got to get re-elected. so let's make it about something else. let's turn it on gender. let's turn it on pay inequality. let's turn it on everything we can possibly do and turn the light away from what the problem is and that is the loss of faith and confidence by the people of this great country in the most remarkable model the world has ever known. and who everybody would love to immolate but they can't.

it falls on our shoulders not as republicans or democrats but as representatives of the people of this great country to get the answers that they deserve. let's stop the fooling around about things that don't really pertain to this and let's get them answered. again, we have to have a resolution to the chief law enforcement officer of the united states to ask him to do his job, that's pathetic, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired the time of the gentleman from -- the time of the gentleman from pennsylvania has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i have great respect for the gentleman from pennsylvania but he's highlighted the differences between the two parties here. you mentioned we're trying to focus attention on gender inequality and other issues. we are. i think there's something wrong when women in this country make 77 cents on every dollar a man makes. i think that's outrageous. i think women ought to be paid the same as men to do the same job. o, yeah, that is an issue.

that is something we should talk about and it's not just a woman's issue, by the way. it's a family issue. the senate sent us over an immigration bill that would reduce the deficit by $900 billion over the next 20 years, $900 billion. they did it in a bipartisan way. we can't even get a vote here. we can't even get a vote here in the house of representatives. you know, there are millions of our fellow citizens who are unemployed, whose unemployment benefits have run out. we can't even get a vote to extend unemployment benefits for these people. maybe because they don't have a super p.a.c. maybe those out there are natural constituencies, i don't know what it is. those are important issues. quite frankly, yes, that's what the american people want us to be talking about, things that matter to them. and the problem with what we're doing here today, this is so blatantly politically motivated, even in terms of the scope of the investigation, that it just -- it is

aughable, it is laughable. listening to the debate in the rules committee last night amongst those in the oversight committee, the back and forth, and realizing how broken that committee is, how partisan that committee has become, because of the leadership in this house , it is really sad. no one here is defending the i.r.s. no one here is defending lois lerner. we want -- but what we don't want to do is trample on the constitution and we don't want to unnecessarily politicize these proceedings, which is what is happening right now. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from virginia, r. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for four minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my good friend, mr. mcgovern from massachusetts, distinguished member of the rules committee, with whom i spent five hours last night. i wish my friend, mr. kelly, were still here on the floor because he reminds us we take

an oath when we become a member of congress. and at the beginning of every new congress. to defend, protect the constitution of the united states. we don't take an oath to look at the best polling for our respective parties and pursue no matter what the issues that rile up our base. at the republican retreat earlier this year, two issues polled real well with their base. benghazi and the i.r.s. and sadly, cynically, we are here today, irrespective of the constitutional rights of an american citizen who happened to be an i.r.s. employee, bending and genuflecting at the alter of that polling data to fire up that base. we're not here defending the constitution. because if we were, we would be invoking our own history.

there was a sad period known as the mccarthy era in this very citizens, federal employees and nonfederal employees, were trampled upon. the fifth amendment right is one of only 10 imnumerated in the constitution and for a reason. because stinging in the memories of our early colonials chambers that had occurred in great britain, the parent country, and even here. and they wanted to protect all citizens, innocent and guilty alike, from self-entrapment, from their own words being used against them in legal proceedings unfairly. they felt so passionate about it that it was one of only 10 innumerated rights in the bill of rights. in the mccarthy era there were some famous cases.

u.s. vs. quinn being one of them. and another one, hogue in which the supreme court of the united states -- hogue, in which the supreme court of the united states and district courts of the united states found that an individual did not waive his or her fifth amendment rights simply because they had a statement to claiming their innocence. s a matter of fact, in the hogue case, mrs. hogue actually participated in times -- at times in answering other question, having already invoked her fifth amendment. the standard is very high. if you've made it crystal clear that you intend to invoke your ifth amendment, it takes a lot to construe that has been waived. and we, members of congress, who take that oath to the constitution should err on the side of protection of constitutional rights, not simple waiver. but of course if our agenda

isn't getting at the truth, it's pandering to those two issues that polled so well with r base, benghazi and i.r.s., then constitutional rights are incident to the enterprise. sand sadly that's what we're considering -- and sadly that's what we're considering here today. i don't think you have to be a democrat or republican, a liberal or conservative to be concerned about protecting the constitutional rights of every citizen. even for and maybe especially for nonheroic figures such as the woman we're dealing with today, lois lerner. because when you trample on her ights, you have risked every american's rights. who's next at the docket? while we're at it, while we're trampling the fifth amendment, what about the first? what about that sacred second? what about the fourth? what about any of those rights imnumerated in the bill of rights? this is not a noble enterprise

we're about today, mr. speaker. and i urge this house to reject this rule and to reject the underlying contempt citation as not worthy of this body and not consistent with the oath each and every one of us takes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. nugent: mr. speaker, it's just interesting to hear the argument on the other side. i've spent 37, 38 years protecting people's rights. it's what i did. as a sheriff we did things and lived within the law. we answered questions truthfully. that's all we're asking. this is terrible that we have to get to this point, but at the end of the day we're not taking her rights away. we're going to the court and asking the court, are we right in our ow -- in our assumption in regards to what the house council had told us, are we

right? if we're not, they're going to tell us we're not. so, she has due process, this whole thing about we're taking her due process away is just ludicrous it. doesn't make sense. -- ludicrous. it doesn't make sense. mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida continues to reserve his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: 32 legal experts have said that my friends are wrong. and i'd like to yield to mr. connolly to clarify that. mr. connolly: i thank my friend. yeah, 32 legal experts said the other point of view and furthermore, i'd say to my friend, if the answer to the house of representatives is, if you want your constitutional rights to be protected, hire a lawyer, we'll see you in court, that's not the oath we took. it starts and stops here. what's the constitutional protection of citizens here on the floor of the house of representatives? and to simply say, go hire a lawyer is a terrible message. in terms of constitutional rights of protection to the citizens of this country.

i yield back. mr. mcgovern: i reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts continues to reserve. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: well, mr. speaker, i'm not an attorney. that's what they do on commercials when somebody wants advice.some legal i'm not an attorney. i'll tell you from my past experience, i can get attorneys' opinions on either side of an issue. that's what they get paid to do. whether they're paid or unpaid, they all have an opinion. doesn't mean their opinion is the right opinion, it just means that they have an opinion. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: just somb's clear here, i mean, we're -- just so everybody's clear here, we're not just talking about any attorney, we're talking about legal scholars and quite frankly the overwhelming opinion is that my friends are overreaching here. and again it makes a mockery of is house and especially at a

time when we ought to be doing the people's work. we have millions of our fellow citizens who are unemployed, they can't even get a vote on house -- on the house ploor to extend unemployment benefits -- floor to extend unemployment benefits. these are the people we're supposed to represent. we're telling them, no, forget it, you're on your own. we have all these excuses why we can't bring that to the floor. the minimum wage. we have people working full-time in this country who are stuck in poverty. my friends went after people on snap, the program that they like to target, a program that provides food to hungry people. and they say everybody ought to get a job. well, the majority of able-bodied people on that program work. and they urge so little because -- earn so little because wages are so low that they're still entitled to some benefit. work -- if you work in this country you ought not to be in poverty. and so, mr. speaker, on both this issue of unemployment and the minimum wage and on the issue of immigration, those are the things we ought to be debating here today. that's what the american people -- that would be solving

problems. not creating partisan political theater. so, mr. speaker, i'm going to ask people to defeat the previous question and if they do, i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would restore unemployment insurance and provide much-needed relief to countless families across this country and to discuss our proposal i'd like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from massachusetts for yielding. i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can immediately bring up h.r. 4415, which would restore unemployment benefits to 2.8 million americans. people who have lost their jobs and are simply trying to find their next job and want to prevent their families from losing everything they've worked for in between that period. i heard the gentleman on the

other side say that folks in this -- on this side are trying to change the subject to something else. you've got almost three million americans who stand to lose everything they've worked for, everything that they've built over their lifetime, and this congress has the power to act, we could do it today. the senate passed unemployment extension. the president will sign it. on the other side we heard that we don't want to take up u.i. because it's not paid for. so we have a bill that the senate passed in a bipartisan fashion that's paid for. does not increase the deficit. you've www.the bill you want, you -- you've got the bill you want, you got the bill you asked for, it would save almost three million people from losing everything they've fought for. do we bring that to the floor? no vote on unemployment extension. we can talk about everything else, we can bring political

messaging bills to the floor, but for the 2.8 million people who are losing everything, no vote for them. not in the house of representatives today. for the 72,000 people every week that are losing their unemployment benefits, hardworking americans, some on to other side say they want be unemployed. yesterday we had a group of unemployed citizens, we intended to have a hearing, we couldn't get a room. the relationship leadership wouldn't allow it. we went to the steps of the capitol and we heard these stories. i suggest you take a look at the people in your own district in your own districts back home -- district, in your own districts back home, who are unemployed, trying to find their next job, have lost their unemployment benefits and look them in the face and tell them that the political messaging bills that are coming to this house are more important than preserving the life that these people have worked hard to create for themselves and their

kids. some of the issues that we deal with in this house are really complex questions. some of them not so complicated. this is one that's simple. 2.8 million people could be helped, only if this congress will act. set aside this nonsense, bring up h.r. 4415. let's get back to the business of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for two minutes. mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the rule. ow, i think tyranny is worth discussing. because when we look at what it's to e to do today, declare lerner in contempt. there is nothing more uniquely

unamerican than abusing the public's trust to target fellow countrymen based on their political beliefs. this is something, when you target your political enemies that lerner did, and the i.r.s. did, and you reward by expediting the president's own political operation, so you punish your enemies and you eward your friends, is soviet-style governance. i would think everyone on both sides of the aisle would be very, very in opposition to what the i.r.s. was doing to the american public. we only hear criticism now from the other side of us proceeding. my friends on the other side have no doubt viewed this as a

partisan witch hunt. but let there be no mistake. we wouldn't be here today if mrs. lerner had not conducted her own partisan witch hunt. lois lerner did what she did -- what she did is completely unamerican and it undermines the very fundamentals of the principles of which this country is founded upon. . 23 we don't hold her -- if we don't hold her accountable for r actions, and this is accountability in the government. then we are sending a message that this behavior is acceptable. let's not send that message. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, wow. talk about tyranny. i should remind the gentleman you got two bills coming to the floor under a closed rule, absolutely closed.

nobody can offer any amendments. it's your way or the highway. absolutely closed. talk about tyranny, we can't get a vote on the house floor on unemployment compensation. we can't get a vote on the minimum wage. we can't get a vote on pay equity. we can't get a vote on immigration reform. i don't know what the gentleman is talking about. i mean, it's our side, those of us on this side, that can't get our voices heard. you have probably one of the most -- last session you had one of the most closed congresses in our history. after you promised a wide, open, transparent process. so you just shut everything down, even the scope of what this bill is focused on is closed in a very partisan way. to focus only on abuse that is deal with potential -- abuses that deal with potential right wing groups, conservative groups. you totally cut out any abuse

that might have happened to a liberal group or progressive group. i don't know what the gentleman's talking about. this is a closed process. we talk about democracy and we need to promote democracy around the world. we need a little democracy here in the house of representatives. we don't have any. let me say one other thing here, mr. speaker. we had 39 experts that were -- 39 witness that is were interviewed -- witnesses that were under viewed by the committee. 39. not one single one indicated there was any link between the white house and the i.r.s. mess. not one. i mean if there had been a few, maybe i guess we could have a bate here about whether we need to go further, but not one. so here's the problem. their narrative doesn't fit the facts. they are upset about it. i get it. you were hoping for some juicy conspiracy that doesn't exist. so you got to create more investigation, more investigation, all the while we

are negligenting, we are negligenting -- neglect lecting our work. let's make sure the i.r.s. is above politics. i'm with you on that. i don't want them to tarring the anybody for political reasons. i'm committed to that. so is everybody on this side. that's not what we are doing here. this is witch-hunt week. make no mistake about it because we are -- we are doing this today and then we are doing benghazi tomorrow. that's the theme of the week. and what a tragedy. what a tragedy when so much more needs to be done. mr. speaker, i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado who is on the rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: i concur with the gentleman from massachusetts and appreciate his passion for his remarks. this process is closed. look, we have something that shouldn't be a controversial bill extending the r&d tax credit, helping make american companies more competitive. it has a cost, $155 billion. let's talk about how we pay for

that cost so we can provide the certainty that our companies need to hire more people and grow. we have an idea. i was proud to offer an endment with mr. garcia, a bipartisan pay for, passed the senate with more than /3 majority. a bipartisan bill, h.r. 15 in the house. we were able to use that to pay for this tax cut. over $200 billion, not onlies to our proposal, immigration reform, fully pay for the r&d tax credit, but also reduces our deficit by $50 billion. guess what? we were denied a vote on our amendment. there weren't any ideas from the other side how to pay for it. if they vote it down, they vote it down. if you don't like our way of paying for it. find another. no member of this house is even allowed to propose a way of paying for things under this rule. it's a guarantee recipe for a republican tax and spend deficit policies. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from mass

plichese. the gentleman from florida is ecognized. mr. nugent: i do have to go back to the comments my good friend from massachusetts mentioned. i wasn't here in 2008, if you look back at the history, the democrats controlled this body. the rules committee, 2008. and there was -- congress considered a contempt resolution in 2008, the rules opted to hereby the resolutions preventing members from even debating it or holding a vote on the measure on the floor. they just said, here we go. we are bringing it to the floor for debate and a vote. pretty open to me. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, my good friend, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. duncan: i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding. i can't cover all the issues being raised here today, but i do want to say this. i spent 7 1/2 years as a criminal court judge in

tennessee before coming to congress. some very interesting question about the waiving of fifth amendment rights. let me just mention what some others have said about this. alan desho wits of harvard has said that lois lerner's statement of incense opened a pandora's box. you can't make statements about a subject and plead the fifth. once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you waived your fifth amendment right, you waived our right on that subject matter. a well respkted law professor at georgetown university, both of these gentlemen are very, very liberal politically. professor said of lois that he she has run a very great risk of having wade her right to refuse to testify on the details of things she has already generally talked about. she voluntarily talked about a lot of the same things that lawmakers wanted to ask her about in her opening statement. in that situation when you voluntarily open up the subject

they want to inquire into, it's all in the same proceeding, that would be a waiver. a lawyer who specializes in ethics laws stated, quote, lois lerner came before the house oversight and government reform committee, she gave an opening statement which she said i'm not guilty. i haven't done anything wrong. the second way which she waived her fifth amendment privilege was when she voluntarily, willingly agreed to meet with the department of justice lawyers. to me this is a pretty clear case, according to ms. mitchell, still quoting her, to me this is a pretty clear case of how she has waived her fifth amendment rights not to testify, not to answer questions. she just is being selected and the one place she will not answer questions is with anyone that she thinks might ask her hard questions. hans of the heritage foundation, another legal expert said, quote, under the applicable rules of the federal courts in the district of columbia, the interview she gave to prtor smith she waived her right to assert the fifth amendment f we

allow somebody to come in and say say they are not guilty repeatedly say this and say they haven't done anything wrong, and then refuse to testify -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: allow people to say that and do that in these types of proceedings and then plead their fifth, we are making a mockery of the justice system and making a mockery of the fifth amendment privilege in this country. i just say this, there's been some mention about some groups, liberal groups being targeted. there are over 200 conservative groups audited and targeted and investigated in this investigation. i think there were three that might have been classified as liberal. it was so obvious what was intended by this -- the i.r.s. activities in this situation, so i support this rule and support the underlying resolutions and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, thank you. i respect the comments of my friend. i think what -- the talk at that

he just gave supports one of the points that we have been trying to make here, and that is we have 39 legal experts, former house counsels, who basically say that what my friends are doing here today is trampling on ms. lerner's constitutional rights. it would seem to me if you wanted this whole circus to be a little bit more legitimate, that you would have agreed to what chairman cummings had asked for, which was a hearing to bring in legal experts to actually talk about the merits of this. before rushing to the floor with this purely partisan bill. the second thing i would say to my friend from tennessee is, when he talks about the number of liberal groups that have been targeted, one of the reasons why we are not talking about liberal groups being targeted here is because the majority kind of stacked the deck.

they formed the rules. they only want to focus on conservative groups. so that's why we are -- that's even more evidence of the fact that this is a purely partisan exercise. i just want to say to my colleagues -- so my colleagues are clear, not one witness, not one single witness interviewed by the committee identified any evidence that political bias motivated the use of the inappropriate selection criteria. the inspector general, russell george, was asked at a may 17, 2013 hearing, before the ways and means committee, i quote, did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax exemption obligations? end quote. in the response he testified, i quote, we did not, sir. end of quote. oversight committee staff asked all 39 witnesses whether they were aware of any political bias in the creation or use of inappropriate criteria, not one identified even a single instance of political motivation

or bias. look, there needs to be reforms in the i.r.s. we need to make sure the i.r.s. is above politics. but bringing this political circus, this witch-hunt to the floor, purely because it polls well amongst your base, is lewd crust. -- it's lewd chris. -- ludicrous. we should be raising the minimum wage, we should be passing immigration reform. we should be dealing with the pay equity bill so that women get paid the same amount that men do for working the same job. it's also a family issue. we have to focus on getting this economy going. instead because my friends on the other side of the aisle don't have a clue of what to do, they are asking us to look over here. let's to a distraction. let's do a diversion. i think this is outrageous. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mass plifes the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i love the comments about mccarthyism as it relates to this particular

issue. really mccarthyism is the i.r.s. the i.r.s. is targeting american citizens that have done nothing wrong. they merely wanted to express their freedom of expression that's guaranteed by the constitution. that's all they wanted to do. we hear about this whole thing about well, there were a bunch of liberal groups that were caught up. i don't believe so. the record will reflect there was less than a half a dozen. while there were conservative groups of over 200 that were targeted. i think that's pretty compelling . and those are the facts. it's not just my thought. it's the fact. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: let me say this, the inspector general testified before the oversight committee that his audit did not look at be on the olo's,

look out list for, with progressive groups. that's what the inspector general testified. let's stop this partisanship. i would say to my colleagues if my friends want to do this correctly, if they want to do this in a way that has some credibility, they ought to do this in a nonpartisan way. it is really quite shameful that the oversight committee has become so polarized and so politicized and this whole issue is being brought before us in this way that really, quite frankly, i think is beneath this house. we ought to do proper oversight, but not purely because it polls well or do it in a way that plays to the political base. we ought to do it in the right way. the i.r.s. should not be involved with politics, period. whether it's going after conservative groups or liberal groups, that is absolutely

unacceptable. we haut to make sure that doesn't happen. that's not what we are doing here. what we are doing here is the witch-hunt. this is the first of the week, we have several we'll do this week. and i think our team could be better spent helping the american people get back to work. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. issa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. issa: thank you. mr. speaker, the minority's entitled to opinions but not facts that just aren't so. our committee issued an extensive committee report, staff report as to the targeting of conservatives. the minority offered no response. the gentleman not on the committee might say something, it just isn't so. the targeting by the i.r.s. was could you have curve groups. they were the ones that got special treatments and asked inappropriate questions. they were the ones that lois

lerner said she did nothing wrong about, but she did. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts had a 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcgoven: i yield myself 30 second. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: the ways and means mocrats found out that there was extensive scrutiny of liberal progressive groups, groups that had names progressive, occupy, and acorn in their name. this goes to show how partisan this process hasing become. this is beneath this house. you do oversight, it it ought to be nonpartisan. this has turned into a circus a witch-hunt. enough 6 this. let's start doing the people's work. i reserve my time. mr. nugent: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida refreshes -- reserves.

mr. mcgovern: i ask the gentleman, how many speakers he has? mr. nugent: do i not have any more here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. issa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. again, bowlows were issued beyond the lookout if you will for conservative groups. conservative groups weristically denied for more than -- weristically denied for more than two years -- were systemically denied for two years their approvals. they were asked questions like, where do you pray? things like, what are your political views? and please show us your condoner list, even though that was inappropriate. the fact that the minority will allude to word searches to see how many of some application beau the ere is not inappropriate targeting -- about the inappropriate targeting and systemic holding and mistreating groups. that's what happened.

that's what evidence is beginning to show lois lerner was at the heart of. but we're here today about contempt for somebody pleading a number of cases of what was right and what they did or didn't do, followed by answering -- taking the fifth, then followed by answering questions, having once waived and thus essentially waiving her rights. now, you can after the fact get 39 people to say one thing and somebody else can get 39 to say another. today we are trying to move contempt to the court system where an impartial judge can evaluate whether or not lois lerner should be ordered back to testify so the american people can know the truth about why she did what she did, what she did was target conservative groups, that's not in doubt, and don't want people using words like circus in order to confuse people. conservatives were targeted, that is clear, lois lerner has things to answer, she only

answers the parts she wants to, including before the justice department but not before the u.s. congress. i thank the gentleman for yielding, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is rised -- is recognized. mr. mcgovern: ask i -- can i ask the gentleman from florida if he has any additional speakers? mr. nugent: i do not. go right ahead. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts voiced. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this is a circus. and it's really sad that we're here on the floor debating this. just for the record, witnesses testified that progressive groups got a multitiered review and liberal groups went through a two-year process before getting denied. the other thing you ought to know is that the i.r.s. has begun a path to reform. it has implemented all of the inspector general's recommendations, including going above and beyond by eliminating altogether. mr. speaker, if they were done in a fair and profession al-manar, we wouldn't be having this -- professional manner, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. but the opposite happened in

the oversight committee. it was a joke. we all saw it on tv. enough of this. enough of this. let's start doing the people's work. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment that i will offer in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: and this is on extending unemployment compensation benefits. it might be nice to do something that might help somebody around here. it might help the american people. instead of doing this witch hunt, this week of investigations, this week of distraction when our economy needs our attention, when people need jobs, when people's unemployment needs to be extended. mr. speaker, i urge all my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on this rule which is a closed rule, two closed rules, and again, you know, when we do oversight it ought to be nonpartisan. this has become a partisan joke. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, we've

heard a lot today. should concern the american people of what we've heard in regards to the allegations and the operations within the i.r.s. i regret, i really do regret that somehow this turned into a partisan shouting match. both sides, both sides are involved in this. i regret it because we've lost sight of the real issue. the i.r.s. constituted a serious violation of public trust. mr. speaker, this goes back to when i was sheriff and i would sit there and have parents come in and complain about school teachers and the police officers that arrested their son or daughter for a violation of law and they were more concerned about what they were perceived as issues in regards to how they were handled versus the actual conduct of their child. this is the same thing. we're blowing smoke all over the place trying to obscure the fact that the i.r.s., under the direction, we believe, of lois

lerner, the involvement of her, violated americans' rights across the board. talk about mccarthys i much. they've done it -- mccarthyism. they've done it. they have the power to do it. if you remember the questions that were asked, they asked people about what they believed and what was their conversations, who they talked with. what an invasion of privacy. i think so. the american people, you've heard this from other speakers today, really need to have their faith restored that this government operates in a very open and in a way that people can trust government again. no one should have to worry. no one, republican, democrat, libertarian or otherwise should ever have to worry about their political speech having them singled out by the i.r.s. no one should have to worry about that. no one group should have to worry about the government

worrying about their speech and having the ability to counter it in a way that brings officialness to it. how do you do that? this is true, whether you're a republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, or anything else. the point is we should be alarmed. this is what we're talking about today. we should be alarmed about the conduct of the i.r.s., under the direction of lois lerner. we should be worried about that in the future because that is the biggest single threat to america today. it's how our own government treats its people, mr. speaker. a federal government agency used its weight, weight to bully americans. that's not what america's all about, mr. speaker. make no mistake, though, that's exactly what happened. the i.r.s. bullied people.

we had someone last night testify about constituents in their district that wanted to promote an organization and do something and they were bullied by the i.r.s. until they finally said, i give up. i can't take it. i worry about what's going to happen because i know the i.r.s. has the ability to do other things on my personal tax .eturn and call into question this is an extreme disservice to the american public. they really do deserve better. if we're ever going to right this wrong, we've got to find out what happened. and we have to understand all the facts. and so my friend as i cross the aisle really don't want to hear about the facts, they talk about everything else under the sun, but they don't really want to talk about what hatched. my good friend talked about this -- happened. my good friend talked about this being trivial. doubling down on crazy. well, i guess you're talking about my constituents, because my constituents have that

concern. they do have the concern because of what they've seen and what's been reported in the media by both the left and right media in regards to the verstepping of federal investigation, the i.r.s., on groups. heard this called a circus. well, that's what we're trying to get away from. we're trying to get away from this partisanship and let's put it -- let's do what we're upposed to do. by appointing a special council we're hoping to take politics out of it. because politics are on both sides of this issue. so to do that you'd appoint someone, a special council to investigate. let's take away the partisanship. but it's also important that people are held accountable for their actions. mrs. lerner defied a lawfully issued subpoena and there ought to be repercussions for that.

otherwise this is just for show. we really have no oversight ability, if people can come and say, i'm not going to tell you. that's not how it works. it's not how it's supposed to work. this rule brings this question to the floor. not like the democrats did in 2008. this rule brings everybody to the floor where they can have n open debate and question and vote on what they think is right. so i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. we have the ability to get answers. because whether it's a republican administration or a democratic administration, the american people need to know that their government is going to be held accountable if they overreach. if they trample on my rights as a citizen, we should have the ability to know who's doing it

and why. and there should be some redress. and today it's really about, we don't care. that's what we're hearing. there's all kinds of other issues but we don't care about this. doesn't matter that we sent numerous bills over to the senate, we talk about job creation, that were passed bipartisanly here. and the senate has refused to take any action on that. refused to bring it up, discuss it, it, debate it, amend it and send it back, they've done nothing. so we have the ability today to get politics out of it. let a d.c. court make a decision. let's do the right thing and i encourage all my colleagues to support this rule. mr. speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. nugent: and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the

resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the uestion will be postponed. the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill. he clerk: h.r. 4192, an act to regulate the height of buildings in the district of columbia, to clarify the rules of the district of columbia regarding human occupancy of penthouses above the top story of the building upon which the penthouse is placed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 569 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 104. house resolution 569. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 4438, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to simplify and make permanent the research credit. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and on any amendment thereto to final

passage without intervening motion except one, 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i -- mr. davis: mr. speaker, i raise a point of order because the resolution violates section al budget e congress act. the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill which includes a waiver of section 425 of the congressional budget act which causes a violation of section 426-a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the gentleman from illinois and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on

the question of consideration. following debate, the chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means of disposing of the point of order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. point of order not only out of concern for unfunded mandates, but to highlight the failure of republican house leadership to protect the long-term unemployed, low-income citizens and others who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. . i raise this point of order because the bill would add $156 billion to the deficit to provide permanent tax breaks for businesses while doing nothing more the 2.6 million americans living with the constant nightmare of having no job, no food, no money, no lights, no gas, no college tuition money,

and no unemployment check. h.r. 4438 is 15 times the cost of helping the 2.6 million americans who are looking for jobs that have been shipped overseas. jobs that have been downsized or outsourced. jobs that simply do not exist. please tell me, mr. speaker, what are they supposed to do? h.r. 4438 would give $156 billion in tax breaks for businesses but do nothing for the 72,000 additional americans who lose benefits each and every week. an estimated 74,000 illinoisans lost benefits on december 28, 2013, with 38,000 of these citizens living in cook county alone. 42,000 illinoisans exhausted their benefits in the first

three months of 2014. h.r. 4438 completely fails these americans. many of whom stood on the capitol steps yesterday pleading with republican leadership to do the right thing. but the heartless response has been and continues to be refusal o help hardworking americans struckling to provide food, shelter, clothing, and medical care for their families. now is not the time to cut, deny, or delay unemployment benefits. failure to continue emergency unemployment benefits threatens the continuation of our economic recovery, costing over 200,000 greatly needed jobs. the expiration has already drained almost $5 billion from our national economy in the first quarter of this year.

in illinois alone, this loss of federal aid means the loss in purchasing power of $23 million each week. money that could be used to support local businesses, buy gasoline, pay utilityity bills, provide co-payment at doctor's offices, clinics, hospitals, and to purchase groceries and pay children's graduation fees. every $1 in unemployment insurance generates $1.63 in economic activity. i say let us practice good economy. let's be reasonable. and let's have a heart. in my state of illinois, the unemployment rate remains 8.6%, and in much of my district it is more than 20%. so finding a job is not easy but people are still trying. government leaders have a responsibility to protect our

citizens and our country, especially during times of national crisis. instead of helping americans who already are hardest hit by the economic crisis, including older americans, low-income americans, veterans, and members of minority groups republicans' prioritize $156 billion in unpaid-for business tax breaks and tell the american people that it's all about fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction. mr. speaker, extending unemployment assistance is a true demonstration of leadership, and our national commitment to all americans. not just the most secure. refusal to help these citizens an unacceptable and mean-spirited approach to leadership. i urge that we reject this rule and the underlying bill by voting no on this motion until

the republican leadership puts people first and provides unemployment insurance to the 2.6 million americans struggling to keep their lights on and gas in their automobiles, to pay rent and mortgages, and to feed their families. i urge that we vote no on this rule and to the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and favor of consideration of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. the question before the house, mr. speaker, is should we now proceed and consider house resolution 569. while the resolution waves all points of order against consideration of the -- waives all points of order against consideration of the rule, the committee on rules is not aware of any violation. in my rule, mr. speaker, the point of order is a dilatory

tactic. the joint committee on taxation states that, quote, the bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as mandatesn the unfunded reform act. this legislation makes permanent a simplified research credit that will help open the door for economic growth and give businesses the certainty they need to thrive. this measure has been routinely extended and supported by both parties for many years. in order to allow the house to continue its scheduled business for the day, i urge members to vote yes on the question of consideration of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield back? mr. cole: i certainly yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. the question is, will the house now consider the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. without objection, a motion to

reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one you hour -- for one hour. mr. cole: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only i yield the cuss pom marry 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, my friend, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: mr. speaker, on tuesday, the rules committee met and reported a rule for consideration of h.r. 4483, a bill that would permanently extend and enhance the research and development tax credit. the resolution provides for a closed rule for consideration of h.r. 4486, and provides for 90 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the committee on ways and means. in addition, the rule provides for a motion to recommit. mr. speaker, dozens of so-called

temporary tax extensions expired at the end of 2013. some of them like the one we will consider under this rule have long been bipartisan and long been renewed annually. as a small business owner myself, one of the things that business craves is certainty. certainty that you could plan around. providing a certain tax structure is important to businesses. take for example, the r&d tax credit, for which this resolution provides consideration. the r&d tax credit has been repeatedly extended since 1981. if it doesn't make you think it's permanent, i don't know what does. too often we here in washington tell businesses, trust us. y, n promise to extend x, or z tax provisions indefinitely, but they can't take that word to the bank. they can't take our word that we will be able to deliver on promises that we make. the only thing they can rely on is the law itself.

and if our tax laws expire every year, it injects an uncertainty into the business environment that inhabits economic growth. we all know that encouraging research and development makes good economic sense. earns and young did a study that found that r&d credit increases wages in both the short and long term. additionally, the legislation we will consider also increases research-oriented employment in both the short and long term. many of my friends on the other side talk about raising the minimum wage, about increasing jobs. those are certainty worthy matters to discuss. permanent extension of the r&d tax credit does just that. that's why both sides have routinely extended this tax credit in good times and in bad. it's time to make it part of the permanent tax code. mr. speaker, others have criticized this legislation because it only deals with a small portion of the expired tax provisions. however, to them i would say two

things. first just as we have had to examine and pear back the discretionary side of the budget, we need to examine the tax side of the budget. there are over 200 tax expenditures or spending on the tax side of the ledger, that if all expended would cost us more than $12 trillion over the next 10 years. we need to take a serious look at which credits should be extended. secondly, this provision is the first of many that will be considered by this house. while the senate has been content to move in a, quote, comprehensive manner, unquote, on issues like immigration and even tax extenders, the house has taken a more deliberate approach. the ways and means committee has marked up seven different extenders affecting a variety of industries that i hope the house will consider in the coming weeks. this will allow us to have a vehicle to take to conversation with the senate to provide the individuals and businesses with the certainty that he they so desperately crave. mr. speaker, i want to commend

chairman camp for beginning this and look ernest forward to consideration of additional measures at the appropriate time. many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have supported extension of the r&d credit because they have seen the value of making this provision permanent. i urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman, my friend from oklahoma, for yielding me the necessary, customary 30 minutes. while i support research and development incentives and consider encouraging american businesses to research, innovate, build, and make it in america some of congress' most important duties, i rise today

in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. four months ago my friends on the other side of the aisle allowed emergency unemployment insurance for more than 1.3 million americans to expire. during the farm bill negotiations, my friends on the other side of the aisle insisted on cutting $8.6 billion from nutrition assistance programs. last week republicans on the ways and means committee insisted on removing a $12 million provision that would help foster children who were victims of trafficking. i find that ironic because this happens to be foster care month. they also fought tooth and nail to derail disaster assistance to hurricane sandy

and almost succeeded. furthermore, they have triggered a government shutdown and sequestration cuts that have drastically cut nondefense discretionary spending by $294 billion. and the reason offered for all these austerity measures still ham string recovery. why can't the republicans pass a bill to create jobs by improving our crumbling infrastructure? well, deficit reduction, i guess, is the answer. yet this bill, a favorite of big business without question, will add $156 billion to the deficit. tax policy in general and then extenders package specifically is about prioritizing the needs

of our country. dozens of temporary tax provisions that expired at the end of 2013 and several others scheduled to expire at the end of this year have been skipped over. they passed up the chance to renew the work opportunity tax credit which helps veterans get work and the new markets tax credit which helps revitalize communities. they have chosen to ignore renewable energy tax credit, and tax credits to help working parents pay for childcare. they decided that it is not important to extend deductions for teachers out of pocket expenses, qualified tuition and related expenses, mortgage insurance premiums, and state and local sales tax, a deduction which is critical for our constituents in florida. my friends on the other side of

the aisle would allow charitable provisions, including the enhanced deduction for contributions of food inventory, and provisions allowing for tax -free distribution from retirement accounts for charitable purposes to expire rather than renew them. . this bill today and the other extender, there were six of them that were marked up by the ways and means committee, are the six extenders favored by big business. that is why these will be the first and likely the only of the extenders, and there are 50-plus of them overall, that the house will vote on. that is why these are the measures my friends want to make permanent. and while i agree particularly with the one that's being discussed, that it should be made permanent, they have no

problem increasing the deficit so long as it is a policy that is a priority for them and for big business. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> i want to begin actually by agreeing on a couple of points with my friend from florida. and le: if you'll recall i know you do, i voted with you. i believe that relief should have been render understanded and i'm glad we did -- rendered and i'm glad we did that and it was done in a bipartisan fashion. my friend knows i've been consistent on that point. i also want to agree that there are a lot of extenders in this package that ought to be considered. and again, as my friend knows, i actually ratesed one of those raised one of

those last night in an amendment with the rules committee, withdraw it, to make the point that he's making, that we shouldn't only focus on a few, but all of these need to be considered and we ought to each of them have an opportunity to be looked at and discussed and frankly i think ways and means owes us a pathway, if they will. i have no objection to what they're doing here today but i do think we all need to understand what's going to be considered and frankly in my view all of these, since we've routinely extended them in the past, probably ought to be considered in one fashion or another. i suspect frankly they will be. because once we arrive at committee, i believe -- or excuse me, conference committee, i believe that the senate will probably have passed in total that, and there will be discussion there. but again, my friend's point is an important one of which i agree, that we ought to look at these things. the reason why we are beginning with this one in a series of five or six others is simply, number one, these are ones that both parties have generally agreed upon in the past, this is not a controversial measure, my friends when they were in the majority in 2008 and 2010 extended this particular along

with many others. this particular tax credit. so we don't think it's controversial in a partisan sense. second, we also think these are the type of tax cuts that broadly contribute to growth. and that's something i know both sides want. we want a growing economy, we want the jobs that that generates and frankly we want the additional tax revenue that growing economy yields. we've made some very tough decisions, sometimes on a bipartisan basis, over the last few years about reducing this deficit. when this majority came in, the deficit was running about $1.4 trillion a year. this year it will come in at something like $540 billion. that's actually a very rapid decline. and along the way some of those decisions have been pretty tough decisions. again, bipartisan some of them. we on our side like to focus on the cuts we've made and as my friend pointed out, we've cut out literally tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars of discretionary spending. none of that has been easy.

again, sometimes on a partisan basis, but eventually it had to pass a democratic senate and be signed by a democratic president so -- in a sense ose reductions have been bipartisan. we've also generated revenue. the fiscal cliff bill, which i supported, and preserved most of the bush tax cuts, but did generate revenue. those things working together have helped bring the deficit down. but we're never going to get the deficit where i know both sides want it to be if we don't have an economy that's growing and moving, creating jobs, innovating and is at the cutting edge and frankly is competitive with our international peers. this legislation is an attempt to do just that. it's also an attempt in my view by ways and means and by chairman camp to begin the process of looking at these tax extenders one by one. while all of them have some constituency in this body, and many of them frankly have overwhelming bipartisan constituentsies, there's no --

constituencies, there's no question that not every single one of them would pass muster if they were looked at individually. so i applaud chairman camp and his committee for what they're doing. i think we're trying to proceed in the right direction here. i don't have any illusions that this will be the final legislation. frankly it will simply get us into conference with the senate and hopefully there will be more discussion there. but i think we're doing the right thing and proceeding in the right way. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from michigan, my friend, mr. levin, who is the ranking member of the house ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for four minutes. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from michigan is ecognized. mr. levin: this is really not about the r.n.d. tax credit.

i have favored, i continue to favor it, democrats indeed are in favor of tax incentives and sometimes we're criticized for that. but that's not the issue here. it's whether we make this permanent without paying for it. it's fiscally irresponsible to do so and it endangers key programs that matter for all americans. and that's why the veto message from the president. why fiscally irresponsible? unpaid for? costing over 10 years, $156 billion? part, as you said, the gentleman from oklahoma, part of a package, that total would be $310 billion and if you add the others referred to, the

package could be $500 billion more or less. a huge sum unpaid for. the $310 billion that's represented by this package is more than 1/2 of the projected deficit this year. so it's not only fiscally irresponsible, it's also hypocritical. it violates the republican budget itself that requires extenders to be paid for if permanent with other revenue measures. here's what the chairman of the budget committee said last month. i quote, our debt has grown more than twice the size of our economy. you can't have a prosperous society with that kind of debt, end of quote. and mr. brady, who i guess will be speaking on this, said last month, americans have had it with washington's fiscal irresponsibility and i don't

blame them. while families across the nation continue to tighten their belts due to rising costs and shrinking paychecks, washington continues to spend more than it takes, end of quotes. and the chairman of the committee said, in 2009, the path, and i quote, to our economic recovery starts with fiscal responsibility in washington. and interestingly enough, the tax reform draft presented by the chairman makes r.n.d. and other extenders, some of them permanent, but without impacting the deficit. it's revenue-neutral, it's paid for and now you come here and not pay for it. and this doesn't even include other key extenders, like the new markets, like the work opportunity tax credit that you referred to, mr. hastings, on veterans. renewable energy. and it leaves in jeopardy some

key provisions that expire in 2017. the eitc, 27 million people affected. the child tax credit, 24 million. the american opportunity tax credit, education, 12 million. the $310 billion is three times the amount spent on education, job training, social services in a full year. nondefense discretionary is now just about 3% of g.d.p., as low as it's been in decades. so any permanent r.n.d. has to be done comprehensively, not piecemeal and unpaid for it. to do it this way is fiscally irresponsible, i think it's hypocritical and it's programmatically dangerous. so i oppose this rule and i hope everybody who is thinking of voting yes, including on the

republican side, will think back at what they -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. levin: thank you, at what they have said before, what they've said before about the deficit. and i hope we democrats will think, we're for this incentive r.n.d. it needs to be done comprehensively, not piecemeal, threatening so many of the programs that benefit so many americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i want to agree with my friend about his concern on the deficit. i know it's genuine and frankly i appreciate the fact that our friends on the other side of the aisle are concerned about the deficit. i do remind them, when we took the majority in this chamber in january of 2011, it was about $1.4 trillion.

it's about $540 billion today. so to suggest that this majority has not been serious about lowering the deficit and has not made really tough decisions, sometimes with my friends on the other side of the aisle, sometimes not, i think is to misstate the facts. we are concerned about the deficit. and at this approach of renewing this particular measure, not approach, excuse me, that would be incorrect, but if renewing this r&d credit is irresponsible without an offset, i point out to my friends, you did it in 2008 and 2010 whurp in the majority. so -- when you were in the majority. so i don't think you're being consistent here in terms of this particular measure. but finally, i want to make the point that the real key, long-term, to getting out of the situation is three-fold. first, obviously restraining domestic discretionary spending. we've done that, it's been hard to do. second, i think getting an

entitlement reform. we haven't done that. hopefully someday we will. but third and maybe most importantly, is getting the economy growing again, moving in a way that creates jobs first and foremost, that provides a higher standard of living for our people, but, yes, that generates extra revenue to the government. there's nothing like a growing economy to help shrink the deficit. this is a measure that both sides in the past have agreed actually reduce -- stimulates economic growth, creates jobs and therefore generates additional revenue. so i think that we ought to approve the rule, we ought to continue this thoughtful consideration of our tax code on a piece-by-piece, item-by-item basis and move ahead. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from

texas, my good friend, mr. mr. doggett -- mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. doggett: thank you. mr. speaker, i support a permanent research and development credit to incentivize research for new products and for decades there's never really been any question about whether we should incentivize research. the question has been how? how to pay for that incentive and how to ensure that it actually encourages more jobs, more economic development with desirable research that would not otherwise happen without the credit? until today republicans who claimed to be for fiscal responsibility, before they were against it, have not been o brash as to demand that we finance this entire research credit on a permanent basis and similar legislation by borrowing more money. a governmental accountability office investigation of this

credit concluded that a few corporations snatch most of the credit and that, quote, a substantial portion of credit dollars is a windfall, earned for spending what they would have done anyway instead of being used to support potentially official new research, end quote. this credit is just another type of special treatment that a few giant multinationals can count on to lower their already low tax rates. last month the "wall street journal" reported the complaint of one giant, said that without rate edit their tax would climb effectively from 16% all the way to 18%. and another corporation complained that their rate would go from 13% to 19%. you know, most of the small businesses that i represent in my part of texas would be delighted to have a rate of that level. they pay substantially more. and multinationals can use this

taxpayer subsidy to finance research that produces patents and copy wrights -- copyrights and the like that are then owned by offshore tax havens, subsidiaries that pay little or no taxes. one company investigated by senator levin in the senate last year did 95% of its research and development right here in america but then it shifted $74 billion of its earnings to an irish sub sid year -- -- subsidiary. apparently the most effective multinational research anywhere in the world has focused on how to avoid paying for their fair share of financing our national security. these are companies that ship both jobs and profits overseas. they're not about making it in america, they're about taking it from america. and that shifts the burden to small businesses and individuals. nor is all of this taxpayer subsidized research beneficial

to the public. for example, some of the research that was done for the electronic cigarettes, the latest fad to addict our children to nicotine, qualified for this tax subsidy. meanwhile, the house republican budget undermines vital private research that is funded through the national institutes of health. they say we can't afford to do what's necessary in research for those. they cut also research for efforts to ensure that taxpayers get their money's worth from our investment in public services. without adequate research, you cannot determine whether an initiative that is proposed justifies frl dollars or is truly evidence based. i think we should reject today's proposal in favor of a research credit that actually incentivizes necessary research made in america. and which is paid for in part by

comprehensive reform of the credit itself. now, as for comprehensive reform, from day one of this congress house resolution 1 was reserved for the much ballyhooed republican comprehensive tax reform, and yet we are well it gh this congress and still says reserve for speaker. that's because the republicans couldn't agree on which tax loophole to close to maintain a revenue neutral, a not borrowing more money. as a result of not being able to do what they said they would do -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hastings: i yield an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has an additional one minute. mr. doggett: because they told us january of last year they would be here with a simpler, fairer, lower tax rate but they can't agree on how to pay for it because they are dominated by lobby groups that want to protect the very complexities and loopholes that plague this tax system because they couldn't

do that and have not done that. they are now back, as the gentleman says, with the first not of one or two but of many provisions to make them permanent and pay for it with either borrowed money or mandatory cuts. i think that's a serious mistake. today's bill represents only the first installment of more tax breaks to come that are not paid for or paid for with mandatory cuts. surely we don't need more research today to know that that is the wrong way to go. it's the irresponsible way to go. and it ought to be rejected. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: hate to keep repeating myself but i think i will. my friends passed this tax credit themselves when they were n the majority in 2008 and 2010. while i appreciate this newfound concern about deficits on their

side of the aisle, i remind them that since we have been in the majority, the deficit has actually declined. declined pretty dramatically from $1.4 trillion which is what they handed over to us, to about $540 billion today. i would be the first to agree that is far too high, but the movement has been in the right direction. so to suggest that somehow this side of the aisle has been fiscally reckless or irresponsible simply doesn't bear up to scrutiny. second i remind my friends once again this has been a bipartisan tax measure over the years. it has been routinely renewed whether there was a democratic congress or republican congress since 1981. it's close to being, as close as you ever get to be, permanently in the tax code without actually being there. we still have that element of uncertainty that's associated every time that we have a discussion over the extension. we are simply removing that uncertainty and we are doing

what all sides have done regularly. that is recognize this is an important component of our code and that we think it generates a great deal in terms of valuable research and generates economic growth and jobs. i would agree with my friend that we are going to have to do different things to actually get the deficit down to where we want to go. look, i serve on the appropriations committee not on ways and means. and i will tell you we have really made dramatic cuts under the discretionary budget. some of which i think are actually too extensive. we have done that in an effort to try and restore fiscal sanity. and i have cooperated with my friends on things like the fiscal cliff that have generated revenue so it hasn't all been cuts. but i do agree with my friend that ways and means needs to do two things, it's responsible for taxes and it's responsible for entitlements. we all know that entitlement spending is the largest single driver of the deficit by far. i would hope our friends on a bipartisan basis would sit down

and start looking at entitlements on ways and means committee. in terms of taxes, i think that is exactly what they are trying to do in this measure. that is begin to look at this piece by piece and pick out the things that are worth keeping. this credit, without question, both sides for over 30 years looked at it and said this is worth keeping. this is valuable. this generates jobs. this generates growth. now, as my friends on ways and means want to look at this and tinker and change around the edges, they are the tax experts, i trust them to bring us something that's good, but remember this bill is going to conference. there is a united states senate that probably has a different view than us. it's going to sit down and negotiate with us. then the bill has to go to the president. so i look on this as a step in the right direction not a final destination point, let alone some sort of dramatic departure of what we have been doing around here.

it's consistent with what we have been doing in terms of thepolicy. what we are doing is making important corrective, turning what has been temporary into something that's permanent. we are doing it piece by piece because not all these extenders should be extended. we ought to look at them one at a time and make that decision. i think that's all we are about, madam speaker. with that i would, again, hope that we pass the rule and the underlying legislation. i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: madam speaker, the american people would be better served if we addressed or broken immigration system, which has become a huge drag on our country's economic growth. if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.r. 15, the border security economic opportunity and immigration modernization act, so the house can finally vote on

something that will move this country forward. to discuss our proposal i am he' pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. cotton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, distinguished colleague from florida. today we are debating research and development in the united states. mr. cardenas: however, what we are actually doing is creating more funding for research and development. while ignoring hundreds of thousands of the develops and brightest researchers in our nation. students who will come out of our research universities and immediately get sent home to another country. they will build economies overseas while we fall behind here in the united states. this is because of our broken immigration system. yesterday i offered a very relevant amendment in the rules committee to complete the underlying bill. this amendment would pay for the tax credit and pass comprehensive immigration reform at the same time. by doing this, we would massively improve research and

development in this country. unleashing the talent of our students, turning them into job creating workers right here in the united states which will support our u.s. economy. everyone agrees we must support innovation through research and development. however, we must make sure that our businesses have the researchers to do that job. last month we saw the annual h-1-b visa cap reached in only five days. again our outdated immigration aw has put american innovation on hold. imagine how many american jobs would be created if we didn't send away more than half of the ph.d.'s graduating with stem degrees right here in our u.s. universities. simply because they were foreign born. this amendment is the best way to pay for these tax credits and to expand research and development by creating jobs and raising revenue and surcharging our local u.s. economy. we must pass comprehensive immigration reform to continue leading the world in research.

because of a failure to consider this valid and valuable offset, i urge a no vote on the rule. i also want to thank you very much for yielding time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i want to disagree with my good friend from florida on one thing but i think it's probably just a phrase but i want to correct it. my friend said if we could finally vote on something that would be worthwhile. i would actually suggest that we voted on a number of things that have been worthwhile. frankly this would have been in december, but the ryan-murray budget agreement i think was he very worthwhile. i think that the omnibus spending bill that finally put us back on some semblance of regular order in the appropriations process was worthwhile. i think the farm bill that was passed as both a safety net program for many of our needy

families in our country as well as an important economic tool that my friend, mr. lucas, got through on a bipartisan basis, was again very worthwhile. you think the flood insurance bill this congress passed on a bipartisan basis, again very worthwhile. i think the fact that we have dealt with the doc fix, there's been on ways and means an agreement as to what we should do, not agreement how to fund it, but we bought a year's worth of time so our health care providers who do a great job helping our seniors and needy people on both medicare and medicaid will continue to be reimbursed. i think this congress doing the gabriel miller kids first research bill taking money out of political conventions and putting it toward pediatric research, that's a good job. i think the fact that a couple of appropriations bills have actually crossed this floor in a bipartisan basis and are ready to go to conference earlier than any time since 197 is a pretty

good job. while we disagree, and i wouldn't say this is the most productive congress in modern american history, to suggest it's not doing its job an moving along legislation expeditiously is something i do have a different view on. i want to agree with my friend from california on h-bsh d-1 -- h-b-1 visas. there's been action on that issue in the judiciary committee. it passed out of committee. when it comes to the floor is sort of not my lane, but i hope we do deal with that. and no question the whole immigration issue that my friend brings up is an important one. i appreciate him doing that. i thanked him for doing that last night. i thank him for doing it today. don't think this is probably the vehicle for a comprehensive bill. and i think we would probably meet more resistence. talking about it, pointing out the importance of dealing with some of these issues i think is extremely helpful. doesn't change the basic fact, though, madam speaker. what we are dealing with here is

pretty simple. pretty important, though. let's do something that in the past we have agreed on in a bipartisan basis, focus on research and development so america's always at the cutting edge of technology and job creation, and give our entrepreneurs and our businesses this very important tool and sense of certainty that it's going to be there. this has been something we have been doing since 1981. it's not news. it's been bipartisan. i think making it permanent, letting businesses know that we can actually work together is the right thing to do. then we ought to proceed as the ways and means committee is proceeding systematically and look at all these other extend ers. some of which will make it, some of which won't. we'll undoubtedly have a vigorous debate about that, and it won't always be a partisan debate. i as you spect some of these things i'll be with my friends on their side of the aisle and vice versa because things like the indian lands tax credit i don't consider bipartisan. i don't consider partisan, it

gets very good democratic and republican support all the time. again let's work together. i think that's what ways and means is trying to do. they are advancing a product systematically and appropriately. i think we have the right rule for it. i think we have a good piece of legislation. i suspect and certainly hope there will be a strong bipartisan vote on the underlying legislation. and with that i'll reserve the balance of my time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: i would advise my friend from oklahoma that i will be the last speaker and we are prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is prepared to close. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i'm certainly prepared to close whenever my friend is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you. i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: you're recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. i'm going to take my good friend's point where i made the statement that we would have an opportunity to finally vote on something worthwhile.

and take that finally out and replace it with something more worthwhile. and some of the things that he pointed out that i certainly agree with and many particulars were certainly measures that were important to us. but i can't resist adding to mr. cardenas' appeal with reference to h.r. 15. nd point out that 40% of the fortune 500 companies were founded by an immigrant or a child of an immigrant. . 28% of all companies founded in the united states in just the year 2011 had immigrant founders. 76% of the patents that the top 10 u.s. patent-producing

universities had at least one foreign-born inventor. immigrant-owned businesses generated more than $775 billion in revenue for the economy in 2011. i could go on and on. i shall not but it's important, i believe, that if this not vehicle some vehicle becomes the one that allows us to deal with things like the h-1-b visa. for example, when we put the cap on it in the last traunch, we achieved that cap in five days. -- of-1--- lity of-1- h-1-b visas, it's something we must deal with and now i

turn finally to the research credit, the measure we are dealing with. it is an important provision that should be extended. since its enactment in mid 1981, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, congress has extended the provision 15 times and significantly modified it five times. however, it's not just what we do that matters. it's how we do it that also matters. this will be the 57th closed rule which means most members will not even get a chance to make changes to the bill. this bill violates the revenue floor of the ryan budget that republicans passed only three weeks ago. meaning the rules committee will have to get yet another special waiver or have to give one. republicans have waived their own cut-go rule 15 times since taking over the house.

republicans insist that comprehensive tax reform be deficit-neutral but won't hold these permanent changes to the same standard. in fact, they are using these measures to hide the cost of omprehensive tax reform. they aren't just moving the goal post, they are changing the game as it's being played. madam speaker, there is something inconsistent between what my friends say and what they do, and i find that very disturbing. hiding behind a mantra of austerity only when it's convenient in my view is irresponsible and opportunistic at best. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no

and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule, and i'm very pleased at this time to yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank my friend from florida. it's always a pleasure to appear with him. i do want to make a point with respect to all tax provisions, they almost always come to this floor under a closed rule because quite frankly they have to be scored. i.e., we have to figure out how much the amendments cost and what have you. it's very seldom we have an open rule on anything that deals with tax policy, and i think we're following customary procedure here. i also, again, want to make the basic point that this is legislation that honestly i think over the years most of the time both sides of the aisle have agreed upon. there's no objection to research and tax credits.

both sides decided it's good policy that it helps american companies be competitive. it helps us stay ahead of the pack in terms of innovation and technical development in this country. and this is probably one of the least controversial provisions in the tax code. so i think moving it and making it permanent, removing all uncertainty and confusion is probably -- well, in my view -- certainly a good thing for our economy. and i hope after the rule vote we can come together on that. madam speaker, in closing i'd like to encourage my colleagues to move the process forward. this approach is important because it allows the house to consider individual tax provisions on their own merits and not hidden by a larger deal. and this credit's good for economic growth. it both creates jobs and increases wages. it's important we not lose sight of that in the midst of this debate, so i'd urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move

the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has been recognized. the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? mrs. lummis: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house suspend the rules and

amended. 863, as the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the bill. -- the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to establish the commission to study the potential creation of a national women's history museum and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from wyoming, mrs. lummis, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: thank you, madam 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 bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. lummis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lummis: h.r. 863 establishes the commission to study the potential creation of a national women's history museum. the commission will prepare a

report with key findings that include an evaluation of potential locations for the museum in washington, d.c., guidance on whether it should be part of the smithsonian institution and cost estimates for constructing, operating and maintaining the facility. in terms of fiscal responsibility, h.r. 863 requires an independent review of the report to analyze the ability of the museum to operate without taxpayer funding. with the information generated by the report, congress will be able to evaluate the proposed museum. this legislation does not authorize the museum to be built or authorize the spending of taxpayer dollars of any kind. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. maloney: madam speaker, a national women's history museum has a rightful place on our -- in our nation's capital, and it's very appropriate that we are considering this legislation the week of mother's day. i believe we should all be able to agree that when our children and their children visit our nation's capital they should be inspired by the stories of the men and women who helped shape this country. sadly today, that is not the case. women's contributions to our country are largely missing from our national museums, memorials, statues and textbooks. the bill before us today seeks to finally change that. it would be the first national women's history museum in washington, and the first in the united states of america and i believe the first in the entire world that would chronicle the important contributions of american women

through america. h.r. 863 would create a bipartisan eight-person commission to develop a plan and recommendations for a national women's history museum in our nation's capital. the commission, which would be funded entirely with private donations, would have 18 months to submit its recommendations to congress and the president. congress will then have to consider these recommendations, and a second bill will be needed to support the establishment of a women's museum. so the bill before us enables a commission to study this and for congress then to react to their proposal. now, i'd like to stress that this has been a very strong bipartisan effort. i'm proud to have worked on this bill with congresswoman marsha blackburn, who's been a wonderful partner and has done so much to get us where we are today. she has been outstanding.

delegate eleanor holmes norton has been a great champion of this effort for years. along with congresswoman cynthia aluminum miss and many, many other members from both parties who support -- lummis and many, many other members from both parties who have supported this. i want to thank majority leader cantor and democratic whip steny hoyer for their support as well. and thank you to the leadership and members of the house administration and natural resources committee for ushering this legislation through their committees with unanimous support. congressman brady and miller and congressman defazio and hastings. we are all working on this together. because we believe ensuring our country's full story is told, not just half of it, is part of our patriotic responsibility that rises above party lines. and we're working hard to make

sure this is a bill that could be supported by members of both parties. as i mentioned, no public funds would be used to support this commission, and the commission is required to consider a plan for the museum to be constructed and operated by private funds only. no taxpayer dollars will be involved. most importantly, neither this bill nor the commission it would create would set the content of this museum. that part will come later after congress acts on the commission's recommendation. and the museum is finally established. but one could imagine a museum featuring original women inkers ranging from ann rand to mary whitman kapman. ms. rand, i suspect you may know about her but you may not know about mrs. calkins. she was born in 1863 and

studied at harvard under the philosopher william james who believed her ph.d. to be the most brilliant examination for a ph.d. that he had ever seen. but mary was not granted a degree because at that time rvard had a policy against confering degrees on women. despite the setback, she went on to become a charter member of the american philosophical association and the first woman president of the american psychological association. but most people have never heard of her or her accomplishments because when the story of america has been told, the story of many remarkable women has all too often been left out. currently in the nation's capital and near the mall or on the mall, there are air and space museums, a spy museum, textile museum, national postal museum, even a crime and punishment museum. a media museum. these are all wonderful and enriching institutions that are

destinations for millions of visitors every year. but there is no museum in the country that shows the full scope of the history of the amazing, brilliant, courageous, innovative and sometimes defiant women who have helped shape our history and make this country what it is. even though women make up 50% the population, a survey of textbooks found that only 10% of the individuals identified in the text were women. less than 5% of the 2,400 national historic landmarks chronicle the achievements of women, and of the 210 statues in the united states capitol, only nine are of female leaders. . as an example while nearly high school student learns about the midnight ride of paul revere, how many of them learn about sara luddington? she's a 16-year-old whose midnig