direction. it is broad based in that it does not pick winners and losers and does not favor one type investment over another simply it favors investments and the types of capital that create jobs and puts more money in team's pockets. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts for three minutes, another distinguished member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: we are here for a faulty effort for one reason and one reason only, failure of fundamental tax reform. now, a good faith effort was made in terms of drafting the proposal but it really didn't go anywhere. now, i would note in this

stitution, known for its emotions, that the response of the democratic minority to the camp draft proposal was fairly muted thinking that this might be a worthwhile start to an ongoing conversation that would be bipartisan and bicameral. a good start we had. the model that we embraced over three years really worked quite well, without the glare of publicity, we actually had an adult conversation back and forth between the parties, the stakeholders and heard from virtually everybody you could hear from. well, when the proposal was response licly, the on the republican side was one

s. historyonic let's not try this, let's not try that. even though an academic exercise had been undertaken that was worthwhile. so tax reform was killed in the crib before there was even an opportunity to have a conversation. now, mr. roskam, my friend from illinois, he said everybody on this side is afraid to use the word stimulus. stimulus, stimulus, stimulus, stimulus. i'm going to use it and i'm going to use it in the motion to recommit. stimulus has worked in america in economic history. when america actually did big things. mr. lincoln found time during the midst of the civil war to form the transcontinental railroad. mr. roosevelt did the panama

canal. mr. o'neill and mr. reagan did the big dig in boston. these are worthwhile undertakings that need to be done and not to shy away from the principle of economic growth under the guise of a remedy that has dubious economic consequences. now, let me say this as well. and i intend in the motion to recommit to speak to it. remember the days when tax policy here was done between the two parties? remember when there was a healthy give and take where we actually talked about our differences in the quiet of the ways and means room? still the most desired committee to sit on in the congress. mr. levin: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. neal: we start out with a bona fide effort to do tax reform. this is not the way to do tax reform. we need to go back to the drawing table and draft a proposal that the american people will come to seen as

competitive and highlight the role optimism has played in american public life. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, is recognized. mr. tiberi: i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, distinguished member of the ways and means committee and health subcommittee chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank mr. tiberi for bringing this very important jobs bill to the floor. this is the slowest recovery most disappointing recovery in half a century. we're miss being five million jobs from our economy. we have a lot of small businesses struggling. the average family in america, average family of four is missing over $1,000 a month from their paycheck, their budget because of this disappointing recovery. so what's missing? well, it's not government spending. that's above where it was in 2008. it's not family spending. that's above what it was. what we're missing is business

investment. when businesses along main street buy new buildings, new equipment, new software to make themselves more competitive, that's when jobs occur and that's what's missing in the economy. what this bill does is make it more affordable for our local businesses to immediately write off, deduct from their taxes a portion of what they buy in equipment and software and technology that makes it more affordable. it allows them to do more of it and that creates jobs along main street. that's what this bill is all about, creating not government jobs, not temporary jobs, not stimulus jobs. this is about creating jobs along main street, by letting our local businesses invest. it has always been a bipartisan bill. this is an area republicans and democrats agree on. unfortunately it's an election year. you're going to hear all of the arguments against it, but the truth is our local businesses are struggling. they need this tax relief, and our economy needs the jobs because we're not going to get

back to a balanced budget until we have more people working and more jobs created and more revenue coming in the door. i commend our leadership for bringing this very important business bill, jobs bill to the floor and i urge republicans and democrats to come together to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: could i ask the gentleman from ohio how many speakers do you have left? mr. tiberi: i'm prepared to close, mr. levin. mr. levin: we may one more speaker. let me yield myself such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i'd like to read the statement of administration policy. administration strongly opposes house passage of h.r. 4718 which would permanently extend bonus depreciation rules that allow corporations to speed up deductions for certain investments and thereby delay

tax payments. this provision was enacted in 2009 to provide short-term stimulus to the economy and it was never intended to be a permanent corporate giveaway. moreover, h.r. 4718 includes no offsets and would add $287 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, wiping out more than 1/3 of the deficit reduction achieved by the american taxpayer relief act of 2013. the deficit increase in 4718 is more than 20 times the cost of the proposed extension of emergency unemployment benefits urge offset cans house republicans are also

making clear their priorities by rushing to make business tax cuts permanent without offsets, even as the house republican budget resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million working families and students. and by letting important improvements in the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit and education tax credits expire. the administration wants to work with the congress to make progress on measures that strengthen the economy and help middle-class families, including pro-growth business tax reform. however, making costly business tax cuts permanent without offsets represents the wrong approach. if the president -- and this is underlined -- were presented with h.r. 4718 his senior

advisors would recommend that e veto the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, is recognized to close for debate. mr. tiberi: may i ask a question. the gentleman said he had one more speaker. mr. levin: i yielded back. tier tier sorry. the speaker pro tempore: you have 11 minutes remaining. mr. tiberi: the choice is very clear. as the gentleman from massachusetts said, a friend of mine who i agree with on a lot, we should be here to talk about comprehensive tax reform and not temporary tax policy. my years here in this united states congress, in my years more importantly on the ways and means committee, there hasn't been a chairman that has

been more bipartisan, more inclusive and made a stronger effort to comprehensively, comprehensively reform our tax code than chairman dave camp. if he would have had a partner in the white house and a partner in the senate to move the ball along as far as he did , quite frankly in a very bipartisan way, we wouldn't be here today. but here's the facts. for the past 5 1/2 years barack obama has been the president of the united states of america. here's a fact. the first quarter of this year 2.9%. nomy retracted this bill is about a jobs bill. simple enough. and in fact during my time on the ways and means committee, putting chairman camp aside, without chairman camp, with

other chairmen, we haven't had any bipartisanship. we haven't had tax bills. we didn't have an effort to comprehensively in a bipartisan way have a tax code rewritten. it's only been chairman camp. so we can talk about theory and academics, but here we are today with one choice. in an economy where it's not where any of us want to be in 5 1/2 years with barack obama as president, we have a piece of legislation that we know creates jobs, that for 10 out of the last 12 years hasn't been paid for. 10 out of the last 12 years hasn't been paid for. and no benefit to job creators for long-term certainty. none. zero. ladies and gentlemen, we've already submitted for the

record hundreds of associations that represent thousands and around s of employers the country who create jobs for hundreds of thousands of employees who say this is one of the best job creating tools they have. i know people who want a job. they'd rather have a job than unemployment insurance. they want a job really badly. something my dad said something to me a long time ago when he lost his manufacturing job of 25 years, most important thing is a job. and that's how simple this is, ladies and gentlemen. that's how simple this is. 5 1/2 years, we have higher taxes, more regulations. this is about jobs. this is what job creators want. let's give them what they want. let's go to the senate. let's have a conference

committee. let's work it out the good old-fashioned way. i know the gentleman from massachusetts and i, if we got locked in a room, we could work it out the good old-fashioned way. let's do it. i urge my colleagues, let's not make this partisan. let's make this bipartisan, as it should be, as it has been and go work with the senate to get this done and help americans get a job. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired on debate, pursuant to house resolution 661, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on -- the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify and make permanent bonus depreciation. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. neal: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from massachusetts opposed to the bill? mr. neal: i am opposed to it in

its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. neal of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 4718, to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith with the following amendments -- page 3, line 22, strike or. page 3, line 24, strike and and insert or. page 3, after line 24, insert the following -- mr. neal: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading? the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to waving reading of the motion? without objection, the reading is waived. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to direct my comments to the other side. mr. tiberi, who is indeed my friend and a terrific guy, said that there is no partner at the white house. when we undertook this very significant proposal on tax reform, it wasn't the white

house. it was the speaker of our house, the speaker of this house who said blah, blah, blah. now, i want to tell you, i am not bilingual, mr. speaker, but would you -- when you tell me blah, blah, blah, i get it. it ain't going anywhere. to blame the white house when the speaker of the house poured cold water on it is outrageous. now, we've heard of several companies that have been proceeding with inversion. force those of you paying attention -- for those of you paying attention to this, it means a company moves offshore, is not a corporate citizen of america but instead they will reincorporate to a foreign address for the expressed purpose of avoiding american corporate income taxes. so the proposal that we have here is pretty simple. . as they line up the dam is blaking. i hear in the next few weeks that up to 47 companies as

congressional research service has pointed out, are lining up to leave. they include manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and financial service sectors. we should be doing fundamental tax reform as mr. camp laid out the proposal. but the issue of inversions and depreciation before us today while seemingly unconnected are intimately connected. given the republican opposition to chairman camp's proposal, we cannot move forward on a house bill that reforms our tax code in a current or meaningful mode at the moment. but we can do it without changing the nature of the legislation. we can in fact address the issue of by linking inversion to the purpose of bonus depreciation. through that we can suggest that any company that moves offshore cannot take advantage of

corporate inversion and bonus depreciation simultaneously. that's what we are proposing today. now, i have a history with bonus depreciation. remember nancy johnson, a republican member, bill english, a republican member? i supported with them the use of bonus depreciation, as mr. roskam wanted to hear me say, stimulus, stimulus, stimulus. on a short-term basis, bonus depreciation makes some sense. but not to make it permanent at the cost of $867 billion. friends, to do bonus depreciation separate from fundamental tax reform is economic nonsense. we need a comprehensive look at the code and reminding ourselves that bonus depreciation is but the following. a tool in the toolbox to make economic repairs. now, this proposal that our republican friends have said with this cost attached to it is

the least offenseible of all the extended proposals that they have offered. our own congressional research service says, you do bonus depreciation for a short-term purpose to provide an economic stimulus during a recession. it's, quote, a temporary investment subsidy that is expected to be more effective than a permanent one for short-term stimulus. its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness. now, this is important to remember here today. chairman camp repealed bonus depreciation, period. now we are bringing it back to be made permanent on a friday morning with no thoughtful or deliberative discussion other than the speaker of the house saying, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. what i'm suggesting here today

is that we cannot afford to hit $825 billion on this or miss chance that we are taking to do fundamental tax reform in this way. let me get right to the nub of what we are proposing. what this motion to recommit does, it keeps bonus depreciation as always intended, a temporary tool in our toolbox in an economic downtown. this is a common sense piece of legislation that extends bonus depreciation for two years, in a thoughtful and deliberative way. and then we go back to fundamental tax reform. then we take it up in a much more integrated way. now, lastly, if you voted yesterday for the delauro amendment, you need to be consistent today and vote for this motion to recommit which

addresses the delauro amendment -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. camp: thank you. i withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: while i'm pleased to hear my colleague on the other side actually agrees with me that we need bonus depreciation, because this motion to recommit extends that policy for two years. but the reason why i oppose this motion to recommit is because, again, this is temporary tax policy. we are the only nation in the world that allows important tax provisions to expire. we are alone on that. nobody else does that. that's why it's so important we make this policy permanent. let me just say, the economy is contracting. 2.9% in the last quarter. it's not growing. we are growing the wrong direction.

we have people whose real incomes are declining. people out of work. more kids are living at home than ever before. we need to do something permanent to get this economy growing. look, families are struggling in america. let's do something pro-growth. something permanent. certainly we agree on the policy. you just don't want to do it for as long as we do. we want to make this permanent. we have done it for 10 years, for all practical purposes, with the uncertainty we have agreed that the policy should be permanent when you do it for that long. but let me just say, look, temporary policy never works. we have more than 100 associations and businesses, representing millions of workers that have come forward and said, please make this policy permanent. we support what you're doing. we need it so we can have the certainty that we need to make investments. look, the tax foundation has said that if we do this, if we

make this permanent, we'll grow the economy by 1%. that we'll add $182 billion to the economy. we'll increase stock. we'll increase wages by 1%, which is $500 for an individual making $50,000 a year. let's give america a raise. let's vote for this bill. let's vote against this motion to recommit. let me just also say, a lot of americans know that the country's going in the wrong direction. but what they are really concerned about is, they don't see us doing anything to make it better. we can restore the american dream, not have it be some remnant of the past, if we support permanent tax policy, reject the temporary nature of this. vote no on the motion to recommit and vote for final passage of the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is not agreed to. the gentleman from mismass.

mr. neal: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five for anythe minimum time electronic vote on passage of the bill. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 191. the nays are 229. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 258. the nays are 160. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign affairs be discharged from further consideration of house resolution 657, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 657, resolution expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding united states support for the state of israel as it defends itself against unprovoked rocket attacks from the hamas terrorist organization. the speaker pro tempore: is there an objection to the consideration of the resolution? the chair hears none. without, the resolution is agreed to. mr. royce: i have an amendment to the preamble at the desk.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment to the preamble. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. royce of california, after the sixth clause of the preamble, insert the following, whereas long has provided material support to hamas and palestinian jihad, including assistance that has enabled these terrorist organizations to produce longer range rockets capable of striking tel aviv and jerusalem and the eighth clause of the preamble as so redesignated strike and at the end. after the eighth clause at the preeamble, insert the following, whereas the united states and israel have cooperated on missile defense projects, including iron dome, david sling, and the arrow anti-missile system, projects designed to thwart a diverse range of threats, including short-range missiles and rockets fired by nonstate actors such as hamas. whereas the united states has provided $235 million in fiscal

year 2014 for iron dome research and development and production. whereas, during the most recent rocket attacks from gaza, iron dome has successfully intercepted dozens of rockets that were launched against israeli population centers. . without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. order in the house. he house will be in order. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. meadows of north carolina for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request s granted.

the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. members and staff, please take their conversations off the floor.

for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, mr. speaker. 'm pleased to now yield to i suppose the majority leader-elect. a few weeks from now. but we'll be doing the colloquies and i appreciate his

stance. we had the opportunity to have lunch. i'm hopeful we can have a very productive rich: as i'm sure this house and -- relationship as i'm sure the house and the country hopes. i'm pleased to yield to the majority lead hrn elect. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i look forward to a very strong working relationship with you. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at 12:00er to morning hour and 2:00 prime minister for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:0 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business, last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, no votes are expected. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week, complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. in addition, the house will

consider h.r. 5016, the fiscal year 2015 financial service and general government appropriations act sponsored by chairman crenshaw. members are advised that the debate on the bill and amendments will begin monday night after the 6:30 p.m. vote series. members are further advised that it is possible that we will have an additional vote series monday night on amendments to the financial service appropriations bill. for the remainder of the week, the house will consider a package of five tax bills from ways and means that will help foster charitable giving. these five bills that will be included are h.r. 2807, the conservation easement intendtific act of 2013, authored by representative gerlach. h.r. 4619, making the rule allowing certain tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts for charitable purposes permanent,

authored by representative schock. h.r. 4719, which will permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory authored by representative reid. h.r. 3134, the charitable giving extension act authored by representative kelly and h.r. 4691, modifying the tax rate for excise tax on investment income for private foundations authorized -- authored by representative paulsen. the house will also likely consider the highway extension bill to ensure that the vital transportation projects continue during the busy summer construction season. and, finally, members are advised that the house may also consider an extension of the terrorism risk insurance act. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. i would ask him, we have now completed six appropriation bills, the gentleman has announced we'll have a seventh

appropriation bill, financial services, on the floor next week. does the gentleman anticipate doing the balance of the appropriation bills the remaining -- bills, the remaining five bills, before the september 30 end of the fiscal year? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman noted, as of last night the house has now acted on six appropriations bills, which is halfway through. and as i mentioned in the schedule announcement for the next week, the house will begin consideration of the seventh bill, the financial services appropriation act, starting on monday evening. and that's as much as i see for the next week. but as we move forward to the july calendar, i will keep you notified as we continue through. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. hopefully, i know he has the expectation, i hope that we would be asked to pass the appropriation bills individually, in a manner that we've considered the previous bills on this floor. i note that the labor health

bill has not been marked up in subcommittee and would simply ask him if, in light of the fact that that has not moved through subcommittee yet, would that be one of the bills that he would anticipate bringing to the floor before september 30? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do not anticipate that bill coming up next week, but as we look towards the remainder of the july schedule, we will certainly notify the members for the consideration of the house. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. of course from our perspective and i'm sure from his, very, very important piece of legislation. the highway bill that is coming to the floor, we know that that is critically important. it passed out of committee i think on a voice vote, although as the gentleman knows, there was substantial disdepreement on the length of term of that -- disagreement on the length of term of that. we're disappointed that we haven't given a longer term or either done a short-term so we could do a long-term bill,

giving confidence to contractors and jurisdictions around the country. but we find ourselves in a situation now where there are more than 100,000 transportation projects that could be delayed. so we look forward to working to not only move this process forward in the short-term, but we would like to and would urge , notwithstanding the fact it appears it's going to be a longer term, until may of next year, that we continue to focus on a long-term, confidence-building, we believe economy-growing effort at a longer term re-authorization of a highway program. the gentleman doesn't need to comment on that. i just wanted to make that comment to him. unless he wanted to say something on that. mr. mccarthy: if the gentleman will yield. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do want to thank the gentleman and the other side of the aisle because as you did note, it did pass out of ways

and means on a voice vote unanimously. we are committed, we want to bring the bill to the floor. fill the hole that we are committed to looking long-term, as many of the ideas that we have brought forth in the past. and we look forward to working with you on working on the highway bill. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. we passed, as the gentleman repeated and that extended -- it was not an extension from that standpoint, but the tax credit for vestments and equipment, depreciation allowance, we palsed that today. that was -- passed that today. that was a $287 billion cost. i would call the gentleman's attention, as i have with mr. cantor, we are still concerned on this side of the aisle, i know the gentleman knows this, that the unemployment insurance bill that lapsed in december of 13 is still -- has still not

been funded. there's some three million people who have fallen off that. d part of your new responsibilities, you will be focused on scheduling legislation. i would urge the majority leader to consider very seriously bringing that unemployment bill to the floor for a vote. we believe that it does have the votes on this house floor and we believe that the three million, and it's growing by thousands per month, who have run out of unemployment insurance, it's slowing our economy, but also obviously from their perspective giving them no support to support themselves and to help support their families. so i would urge the gentleman to look again at the unemployment insurance status. originally proposed to be retroactive, even if we look at it prospectively, we would hope that the majority leader would look at that and consider whether we may move forward on

that on this house floor. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his input. as i said earlier, in next week's schedule, i do not anticipate that coming up next week. but as we look towards the rest of july, i will keep all members posted. mr. hoyer: i appreciate not only keeping us posted but the focusing on that to see whether we might do that. tria, the gentleman has announced that tria is going to be under consideration. we believe this is a very important piece of legislation. it however passed out of committee on a party-line vote, as the gentleman knows. and there are still concerns that need to be addressed and i would hope that we could work on those before it comes to the floor. does the gentleman know whether that will come under a rule and whether or not that rule will amendment an open

process? mr. mccarthy: i thank for yielding and bringing up this issue. as i mentioned, the schedule announcement for next week, members should be prepared for a possible consideration of the terrorism risk insurance act. but once the timing is finalized, the rules committee will announce the hearing on the measure to determine the process by which the bill will be brought before the floor. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. as the gentleman knows, we only have 12 days remaining until the august break, of legislative days that we'll be in session. and only 22 days before the end of the scheduled session, prior to the election. the scheduled date is october 2 for us to adjourn. we believe this legislation is critical, again, for the economy, for confidence in the marketplace, to be passed. and so we would hope that to facilitate that, we could pass it through this body in a boip way, which would make it he's -- boip way which would make -- bipartisan way which would make it easier for the senate to

facilitate pass and get that bill president. so i look -- bill to the president. so i look forward to working with the gentleman to see if we might overcome the partisan vote that came out and replace that with a bipartisan vote, make some accommodations on both sides to accomplish that objectivive. and i appreciate his being willing to work on that. last -- next to last, the export-import next to last the export-import bank, i know there's work being done. i know the gentleman indicated it's not ready at least for passage. but we know -- this expires at the end of the year. we are very concerned about the adverse impact it will have. could the gentleman give me any information on where he thinks that consideration of that bill may be at this point in time? mr. mccarthy: would the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i yield. mr. mccarthy: do i not

anticipate that coming up -- i do not anticipate that coming up next week. we will certainly notify the members if that will be considered on the house. million hoyer: again, i -- mr. hoyer: i did understand it's not coming up next week. the reason i mention time, we have so few days, legislative days left, we are going to need to plan to address some of these issues that i think are going to be very important to our economic growth. i know the gentleman's very concerned about that. we are very concerned about it. on our side. his members are very concerned about that. we believe that that export-import bank is a -- an economic growth, economic confidence building measure. we would hope we could address that. there are also, as the gentleman knows, 41 house republicans who signed the letter urging that be passed and indicating their support of it, which we believe

every democrat on this side will vote for that. that's almost 200 people. with the 41. clearly makes a majority of this house. we think it could be passed on this floor, and we think it would have a very positive effect on the economy. we would urge the gentleman to consider very carefully with his colleagues whether or not we can move forward on that. lastly, i would say to the gentleman, we are all very concerned about children coming to the border. concerned about the process of making sure that this humanitarian crisis is dealt with in a constructive, positive way for the children. but also in way that gives clear notice that america cannot have borders which are simply opened but must be able to authorize people to come in to this country. not have them come in in an unauthorized fashion. in that respect, one of the problems, i don't know whether

the gentleman had the opportunity to see the "wall street journal" editorial today, but they made it very clear that one of the problems is that because the system is broken, because we have not passed comprehensive immigration reform, and the gentleman, of course, based upon where he lives, obviously is very -- probably one of our more knowledgeable members on this issue, but the "wall street journal" observes that one of the problems is that people cannot come across the border and then return in a fashion which will provide for work here by them and also for them not only coming here but then leaving without an expectation they'll never be able to visit or work again. either family members or for the purposes of work. we continue to believe that the passage of comprehensive immigration reform would be a ameliorate the present crisis we see at our borders. and we continue to hope that

comprehensive immigration reform will also be an item on the agenda. although we have 22 days left between now and our october 2 projected adjournment, the expectation, i think, of all of is we will come back in a postelection session, so-called lame duck session. either before that, in the next 22 days, or in the session after the election, we believe it is critically important to address the immigration issue. the gentleman and i have had an opportunity to discuss this over the last couple of months. i know he's very knowledgeable about this issue and sensitive to this issue and i would hope we could work together to see whether or not we could put a bipartisan bill on the floor sooner rather than later. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate you bringing up the

crisis at the border. many of the members in this house on both sides have been down to the border personally to see the crisis. i think that's foreign for all elected officials to go see. -- that's important for all elected officials to go see. we have a task force working on this. i know the president put for the the supplemental -- put forth the supplement. do i not anticipate that coming up next week, but as we look toward the remainder of july i look forward to working with the gentleman on that and other issues. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that response and hope that the supplemental, because it deals with a humanitarian crisis, would not be a partisan issue. we obviously need to deal with the immediate problem. i was talking about the longer term problem, but i appreciate the gentleman's observation with reference to the supplemental. i'm a supporter of that supplemental. obviously appropriations committee needs to review it with respect to the proper levels of funding, but there is

no doubt that we, right now, have inadequate resources to deal with the humanitarian crisis that confronts us immediately. those funds are necessary. i'm pleased that the gentleman brought it up and i look forward to working with him on it. unless the gentleman wants to make further comment, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on monday, july 14, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask

unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order. mr. speaker, a family in spring, texas, has been executed. the evil killer disguised as a fedex driver, forced his way into the home of this family on wednesday. he tied up one child, cassidy, and waited. and waited. until all five children and their parents, katie and steven,

came home. then he shot them one by one, killing six and leaving cassidy for dead. he fled the scene with more mall list in his heartless soul headed to kill the grandparents of the children. cassidy called 9-1-1 to alert the law and quickly the murderer was caught before he could kill again. murdered were steven, 39. katie, 34. brian, age 13. emily, age 9. rebecca, age 7. zach, age 4. and wounded was cassidy, age 15. the killer had come from utah to texas to seek revenge against this family. he targeted them because his ex-wife was a family relative. people in the quiet area of spring, texas, in houston are saddened and shocked and mourning for their neighbors who had life viciously and violently stolen from them. the killer is charged with capital murder in texas. and if found guilty, hopefully a

texas jury will help him meet his maker very soon. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, just a few moments ago this house passed legislation introduced by myself and the gentleman from oklahoma, tom cole, the israel resolution, supporting israel's right to defend itself. mr. israel: reminding the american people of the role that iran has in supplying these terrorists. mr. speaker, i'm a big believe in what would -- believer in what would we do if crisis occurs? what would we do if we had terrorists on our border sending rockets into our communities? if we had hamas, if the gaza strip were in dover delaware, this capital would be hit by

rockets. baltimore would be hit by rockets. philadelphia where tourists gathered during july 4 to celebrate our independence would be hit by rockets. new york would be hit by rockets. long island would be hit by rockets. what would we do? exactly what israel is dofplgt we would protect our citizens. we would seek to spare civilian casualties. we would try and negotiate as best we could a peace, but do it through strength. every nation in america has the right and the obligation to protect its citizens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. israel: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise again today to speak about america's southern border and infiltration happening by foreign nonzints into our country. mr. lamalfa: it's clear to most americans that the massive influx of new illegal immigrants

is due to the proposed senate amnesty bill and the president's unilateral decree that u.s. customs will not deport these moinors who cross ill elie into america. today's immigration problem lays at the feet of the president and senate who proposed another round of amnesty in america in response to continued illegal border crossings. honestly, what did this administration think would happen when you offer 12 million illegal immigrants amnesty and do nothing to secure the border? did you think there would not be more to come? mr. speaker, what the american people want to see is a strong sense and truly secure border or we as americans determine who is let into this contry. this is not rocket science. the american people want a government that works. want with -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lamalfa: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.

miss -- mrs. maloney: it was three months ago that the terrorist group boko haram attacked and kidnapped 276 female students. they were children, some 12 and 13 years old. since then more have been kidnapped. this congress has a role to play. a positive role to play, by supporting u.s. and u.n. efforts to bring these girls home, to bring peace to nigeria and africa by supporting investments, to bring development to africa, and by encouraging all involved to do all they can to bring these frightened children home. the air force can leaders have a role to play. they should be leading -- the african leaders have a role to play. they should be leading the effort to rescue these children. i can never forget how the world came together in one brief moment in the wake of 9/11 to support america.

we are all americans, the world said, as one. i would wish now that the world would say, that until we bring -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013, gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. miss nor yot: -- ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. we are approaching the end of the session, and i know republicans, my good colleagues on the other side, recognize that they are on track to beat last year's session where we had the distinction of being the the t -- the congress with lowest productivity in recorded united states history. there seem to be some members

looking around to make up for lost time. what to do? well, there's always the district of columbia, if you want to fatten your agenda, why introduce a bill having to do with the district of columbia. that ought to bring enough wry. after all the district of columbia has a member of congress who can't even vote against your bill. hy not try that? i find as i look at the record of members who do that that there's a pattern there. these are often members who have introduced very few bills that would benefit their own district. next week the financial services bill will be on the floor. it happens to contain the district of columbia appropriation. now, of course, unless you are

familiar with this bizarre situation, you will wonder what in the world is the district of columbia appropriation doing here in the first place? it shouldn't be here. because it doesn't have a dime of federal money in it. it's an undemocratic an ac roism in that allows this house to somehow approve a bill from the district of columbia where not a member of this house except me is accountable to the voters of the district of columbia. how's that for democracy? yet, nevertheless, it will be before this committee and until we get the same kind of budget you aen to memy -- autonomy that every member's district enjoys for their own local money, you'll find that your time is encumbered by a district of columbia appropriation bill.

the real difference between the district of columbia of course and the other bill it's that you will have before you is that our bill is balanced, we have a surplus, the federal budget is unbalanced and has a deficit. there is of course -- there are nam of other -- there are a number of amendments. normally we had driven these amendments down to just one. what i will call the annual abortion amendment. it's become a kind of annual ritual. of course there's lots of hypocrisy in the house, but it really shows up on the annual abortion bill. 17 states, with members who sit their n this body, allow own localities to spend their own local money on abortions for low-income women, recognizing that the congress

does not allow federal money to be spent for abortions. that's even when a woman will be in distress. if she's low-income, she's out of luck. unless the local jurisdiction, of course, allows for such funds to be spent. and of course that's regularly done. except for the district of columbia. where again unaccountable members have stepped in to keep the district of columbia from doing what 17 other states already do. when the democrats were in charge of this house i was able to get all of the so-called attachments to the district of columbia -- district appropriation off, even the abortion attachment. it has been the only one to return. that to thank the house,

one of these attachments has not returned. that of course was the needle exchange attachment that had deadly effects and i choose my words appropriately. because that rider, which was on the a-- attached to the d.c. appropriation, for 10 years literally spread the h.i.v. virus throughout the district of columbia and is singularly responsible for the fact that the district of columbia has the highest h.i.v. rate, hiv-aids rate in the country. once i was able to get that attachment removed, we have een injection needle-related

h.i.v. drop. that will give the house some sense of the great damage that was done by that attachment and i am grateful and i will say to this house how grateful i am that that rider has not returned and i believe that one of the reasons it has not returned is that at least some mbers are aware of its effects and those effects have acted as something of a deterrent to adding that rider again. this year, here comes the marijuana decriminalization rider. the district of columbia was pretty late in looking at marijuana decriminalization and i will get to the reason it looked at decriminalization in a moment. but, there are 18 states that have gotten there long before us. the first in 1975. when this rider came on, i knew

that there was going to be some because john mica in his subcommittee of the government oversight and reform committee actually had a hearing on this matter. he hasn't called a hearing on colorado, for example, which is legal -- which has legalized marijuana, although he's looked at colorado. he could have looked at the district of columbia. we had a whole hearing on the district of columbia. that's what the district of columbia has to abide in this house. and of course i should not be surprised and i was not that there came a member who decided that he would try to keep the district of columbia from doing what 18 states have already done before it.

-- block marijuana decriminalization law. now, look, i had hoped we were in good company because of a . ry recent vote on this floor a healthy 49 republican members voted with many democrats to block the government from prosecuting users and sellers of medical marijuana in states that permit its use. that happened within the last month or so. and i said, oh, my goodness, we are in ancreasingly good company -- we are in increasingly good company, republicans and democrats alike see that without condoning any forms of marijuana, the tide has changed certainly on medical marijuana.

well, i do not have any illusion that because the house mes together even to consensus on any matter that it will apply that consensus to the district of columbia. i must say that it took me almost a decade to get another rider, a rider that blocked us from -- blocked the district from implementing its medical marijuana law. well, that law has now been implemented and so now we have members looking at our -- at d.c.'s marijuana decriminalization law. at this point, 23 states have legalized marijuana.

you're getting close to half the states. i'm sorry, legalized medical marijuana, medical marijuana. as i indicated, 18 states have decriminalized marijuana. that just means you're not going to give someone a record for smoking weed. it doesn't mean you think it's a good thing to do, but it does mean it is not worth a jail record. not so much jail, because people don't usually go to jail, they just get a record that keeps them from getting a job. two states have legalized marijuana and the house should take note of this. 2014 pew research center poll of now found that 54% americans support marijuana legalization. the district hasn't legalized, most states haven't legalized,

the american people are ahead of where we are. but the same double standard that i encountered on medical marijuana i am seeing on marijuana decriminalization. by the way, marijuana decriminalization isn't new. the first was in 1975 and that state was alaska. and if you look at the map of states that have decriminalized in one form or fashion, you will not see any difference between so-called red and blue states. from california and new york to mississippi and nebraska? and of course the two states shah have legalized marijuana, colorado and washington -- that have legalized marijuana,

colorado and washington, we see that this approach to marijuana is spreading. i think most young people don't see enough of a difference between marijuana and a substance that has done far greater harm, alcohol. to understand why they should be criminal -- there should be criminal penalties associated with marijuana. ven if, like me, you don't think that it's a very good thing to go around smoking anything, cigarettes, pot, you name it. now, nothing distinguished the district's democratically enacted local laws, including those 18 states. we're all american citizens.

but you will occasionally hear members say something that only a tyrant would say. the member will allude to the fact that the district of columbia, before had home rule, -- before it had home rule, was subject in every respect to the congress of the united states, in fact all the laws were -- by ssentially the the congress. but what those members will not tell you is that congress repudiated that power 40 years ago when it gave the district of columbia what we call home rule, self-government. essentially the home rule act says, the congress of the united states will no longer either pass or interfere with the local laws of the district of columbia. . leave that to you

the congress did indicate that there were a few exceptions. the hyde act, which prescribes can go in ldings the nation's capital, is an example. another example is the district can't pass a commuter tax. even though many other jurisdictions have those. except for those examples which re very few, there is no brand of local law that the home rule act does not cover. so you can cite the constitution all you want to, but you must also cite the home le act of 1973 which in fact

repudiated the power of the congress. to interfere with the local laws of the district of columbia or with the district of columbia itself. and why wouldn't it? who are unaccountable members, democratic or republican, of the house or senate to have anything to say about either money they didn't raise or laws that have to do only with local oncerns? well, among those you would expect to be most familiar with the home rule act would be our neighbors, those who live in maryland and virginia. and if i may say so, we have republican members, democratic members in both those states and for the most part they have respected the integrity of the district of columbia through its own local laws. but representative andy harris, i believe he's a second termer,

has not yet read the home rule act. and though he lives in the gion, he has not, he has not reacted as a neighbor. he is from the state of maryland. andy harris is. the state of maryland is one of ose jurisdictions that has decriminalized marijuana. now, representative andy harris was unable to convince his own state not to decriminalize marijuana, so he steps across the border into the district of columbia to try to tell us what to do. happens to be from the eastern .hore of maryland

sidents were so enraged that the major d.c. rights organization, d.c. vote, has called for a boycott of the eastern shore of maryland. you know, the eastern shore of maryland is essentially a vacation spot. it depends on people from the region, the district, maryland, there, , to visit especially during this season. . and the district of columbia has many allies in this region who agree with us that the congress shouldn't be in our business. i don't you know why representative harris would want to stick his nose into the business of the residents of the district of columbia. . i can't understand why he thought that would benefit the

economy of the eastern shore of maryland. he's from ocean city. they live off of the rest of the region, including the district of columbia. i looked at his productivity here. to see -- is he busy? not busy enough? he's introduced only 10 bills. i have introduced 63. i'm trying to take care of my residents. the 10 bills he's introduced is very low productivity. i have co-sponsored three times as many bills as he's co-sponsored. because i try to attend to the business of my own district. i don't know if representative andy harris was fishing around for something to do, but he ought to phish at the eastern shore, and he ought to find something to do with his own residents.

because all he's done now is to outrage the people of the district of columbia. and he's done worse. he's patronized us. no, i'm a doctor. i'm a lawyer, too. what does that mean? does that enable you could come into my district and doctor my people? and i don't think marijuana is good for young people. i don't, either. i also don't think that young forle ought to get a record having used marijuana. 18on't know what propels the states who have legalized marijuana, but let me tell you why the council of the district of columbia decriminalized

marijuana. two studies were done. each showed that in the progressive district of columbia , where half the population is ack and half is white or hispanic that blacks were eight to a rate of nine times that of whites for marijuana possession. do you know what that means for young black, particularly a young black man or boy in this country today? it ruins their lives. they come from across the anacostia, which is a low-income part of the district of columbia, black men in our country, regardless of income or

education, are surrounded by stereotypes. let one walk in with a, quote, drug possession, stereotype on his record, and i will tell you ou're looking at a black man who if he starts out in life that way will have his life ruined. because he has a, quote, drug conviction. i don't know why they did this in alaska or mississippi. but i know why they did it in the district of columbia, although it's none of the business of this house. they did it for racial justice reasons, and we are not going to have it undone by somebody who has no sense of my district. an arrest or conviction of any kind for a, quote, drug

possession, and that's what marijuana is, can lead a young man, particularly from poor districts in the district of columbia, to the underground economy, even to selling drugs where he was only possessing them before. because he has -- hasn't got a job because he has a, quote, record. a he district passed marijuana decriminalization law. is t say that this city well aware of the effects of drugs. this is a big city. it has had its time with drugs, just like every other big city

in the united states. nobody in this city fools around ith the notion of drugs. drugs has promoted violence in our city. it has ruined lives in our city. it's the last place in america drugs of encourage any kind. also, we don't know what the effect of marijuana smoking may be. that's yet to be determined. i know this, for millions of americans, who are in their graves, because we didn't know the effects of cigarette smoking. so the last thing i or anyone in the district of columbia is going to say, go out and be free. smoke as much marijuana as you

can find. marijuana smoking could prove to be as bad or worse than cigarette smoking. i only wish we had known for the 100 years or so that people ruined their lives smoking cigarettes. and the district of columbia appears to have recognized that. the bill requires revenue collected from civil violations d civil violation fine to be placed in a substance abuse prevention and treatment fund. that's administered by the d.c. department of behavior health for substance abuse treatment and preventive programs. it there are four d.c. prevention centers. they are funded by the department of behavioral health. that serves all eight wards of the city.

this is what the city has already done, even though interesting to note all the polls show that penalties for marijuana use are not key to determining whether teenagers decide to use marijuana or not. so nobody knows how to steer people away from marijuana. what they do know is that a record for having possessed marijuana can ruin your life. if you are a person of color, it an even effect it in greater respect. it's important to note that all of the polls in the district of columbia and in the country show hat blacks and whites in the district of columbia and in the united states of america use

marijuana at the same rate. so why are blacks not overwhelm ere but across the country given a record more often? i note also and commend councilmember tommy wells, who has introduced yet another bill called the marijuana use public information campaign act of 2014 . it that bill, which was creently introduced, would establish a public information campaign to educate the public on the impact of marijuana use. i bet you most of the 18 other states hasn't gone to this extent in order to deter people from using marijuana at the same time that they have decriminalized it. the district of columbia has been very responsible. who is irresponsible is representative andy harris,

because the irresponsible thing to do is to mess with my istrict. you are not accountable to the voters of my district. you are seeking a free ride through an act of congressional bullying. and that's the way we take it. and like anybody who is bullied, we don't know how to do anything but fight back. we don't like to be patronized. we will not be bullied. nd we will not have a member tell the residents of the district of columbia who have no way to hold him accountable what hey may or may not do. so i ask members of the house to

be consistent, particularly my epublican friends, which are own fellow foot prohibit approach -- footprint approach as a core value. that and the whole notion of local control as opposed to federal control is the hallmark of your values. i ask you simply to apply the same principles to me and to the district of columbia that you are insisting upon for you and for your own constituents. i remind you that we are all americans. that there are no second class americans. and the americans who live in the nation's capital insist upon being treated fully equally with

-- all u t. all of us of you, all of us who are fortunate to be citizens of the united states of america. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, is recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. i mcgovern: mr. speaker, join today with representatives walter jones and barbara lee to introduce a privileged resolution, house concurrent resolution 105, to direct the president to remove u.s. troops from iraq within 30 days or no later than the end of this year, except for those troops needed to protect u.s. diplomatic

facilities and personnel. we did this for a simple reason. congress has the responsibility to authorize the introduction of american troops where hostilities are imminent. in less than three weeks, three separate deployments, the u.s. has sent at least 775 additional troops to iraq. now is the time for congress to debate the merits of our military involvement in this latest iraq conflict. openly, transparently. do we approve of these gloiments and any future he can -- deployments and any future escalation? if so, we should vote to authorize it. if we do not support it, we should bring our troops back home. it's that simple, mr. speaker. congress has the responsibility to act on iraq now. mr. speaker, we did not introduce this privileged resolution lightly. by doing so we have started a process to hold a debate on our

engagement in iraq later this month. we are using the special procedures outlined under the war powers resolution. while this is an -- while this is an imperfect tool, it requires the house to take up this bill after 15 calendar days. like most of my colleagues, i would prefer for this house to bring up a bill authorizing our engagement in iraq. and nothing this this resolution inhibits such important legislation from being drafted and brought before this house for debate in a clean up and down vote. frankly, i wish that were happening, but i have not heard that such authorization is even under discussion let alone being prepared for debate. so, my colleagues and i are introducing this concurrent resolution because we strongly believe congress has to step up to the plate and carry out its responsibilities when a service -- our service men and women are once again being sent into harm's way.

the time for that debate is now. not when the first body bag comes home from iraq. not when the first u.s. air strikes or bombs fall on iraq. not when we are indebted with iraqi troops trying to take back an isis-held down. and worst case scenario, not when our troops are shooting out of an overtaken baghdad. now, mr. speaker, is the time to debate our new engagement in iraq, before the heat of the moment when we can weigh the pros and cons of supporting the malika government or -- maliki government or whatever government is cobbled together should he step down. now, before we forced to take sides in a religious and sectarian war. now, before the next addition of more troops takes place and make no mistake, i firmly believe we will continue to send more troops and more military assets into this crisis. . now, mook, before we are forced to fire our first shots or drop

our first bombs. now, mr. speaker, is when the house should debate and vote on this very serious matter. for those who say it is too early, too premature for this debate, i respectfully disagree. the longer we put off carrying out our constitutional responsibilities, the easier it becomes to just drift along. this is what congress has done over and over and over and over and it has to end, mr. speaker. congress must speak and congress must act. this resolution should have passed the house with direct -- this resolution should pose security questions no later than by the end of this year, nearly six months from now. it would not require these -- it would not require those troops that have been deployed to safeguard the security of our diplomatic facilities and personnel for withdrawing. they could remain and carry out their crucial roles of protecting our civilian

personnel on the ground in iraq. this is why we need to take up this resolution later this month. debate our military engagement in this latest war in iraq and have a clean vote on this resolution, up or down, about whether we stay in iraq or whether we bring our troops home. we owe this much to our troops and their families. we owe this much to the american people. and we owe at least this much to our own democracy and democratic constitutions -- institutions that require congress to be the final arbiter or whether our troops are sent into hostilities abroad. i ask my colleagues to join representative jones, representative lee and me as co-sponsors of this resolution. i look forward to debating the merits of the iraq war later this month and voting on whether our troops should stay or leave iraq. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the chair lays before the house the enrolled bills. the clerk: h.r. 1216, an act to designate the department of veterans affairs vet center in prescott, arizona, as the dr. cameron mckinley department of veterans affairs veterans center. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the time, i appreciate you being down here with me. i think about just a couple of years that you and i have served in this congress and i think back, i hope school house rock was on tv when you were coming along, the first thing i did when the internet came out and, yes, i was old enough to remember when the internet came out, is i looked up the school house rock video and i looked

up the "i'm just a bill sitting on capitol hill" because it sells the tale and we learned that before we learned all of our times tables, we learn how a bill becomes a law. we learned about what this great experiment in self-governance is that is the united states of america. and it makes me sad that it comes on a little less on saturday mornings than it used to and now parents are down on watching as much tv on saturday mornings. i hope school house rock is still required viewing in every family in america. because the whole process of how a bill becomes a law critically important to who we are as a people. as a people. i know what happened to you, mr. speaker, like it happens to me. i go back home and i'm the congressman. i'm the congressman. i'm holding the town hall meeting, i'm standing up in front of the room, maybe i'm up on a stage. i've got a big microphone and there are all these folks sitting out there in the

audience and it dawns on me that i'm the servant and all the bosses are sitting out there. that's what's so wonderful about what goes on here. you have the great privilege of representing a small slice of america and in my case it's the seventh district of georgia. but the bosses live at home. and we don't do this -- and if we don't do, the way school house rock laid it out, if we don't go through that process each and every time for how a bill becomes a law, the loser are each one of those individuals who show up at my town heal meetings who are -- town hall meet hogs are actually the bosses of this country. the loser is the assistant in america who should be sitting on the board of directors but who gets shut out of the decision making process if we don't follow the simple cartoon that we all became fond of growing up.

mr. speaker, you know better than i do, there was a supreme court decision that came out st week, it was called the noel canning decision. the supreme court. we talk about it all the time, mr. speaker. i wish i had a microphone that went out to the folks back in their offices who are watching this on tv. we could do a quick telephone poll of who folks think the liberal justices are and who folks think the conservative justices are and who folks think the middle is. but that court is divided. whew! mr. speaker, you know, there are some hard core conservatives sitting on the supreme court today and there are some hard core liberals sitting on that very same bench. nine of these folks sitting up there on the bench, and i read the decisions when they come out, mr. speaker, and it's 5-4 this, 6-3 that. it's these starkly divided opinions about what the direction of america ought to be. and i get that. we're a sharply divided country. we see that in presidential elections, we see that in congressional elections.

but this decision that came out last week, mr. speaker, this noel canning decision, was supreme 0 by the court. 9-0. it did not matter how how core conservative the justice was, it did not matter how hard core liberal the justice was, every single justice agreed. and what they agreed on, and it gives me no pleasure to talk about it, what they agreed on is that the president of the united states exceeded the authority granted to him by this united states constitution and that the united states congress did absolutely nothing so the hat in and supreme court, two years later, had to make the decision that it was wrong. i get the balance of powers,

mr. speaker. i get it. i get that the congress is here as article 1 and we make decisions and then our bills have to be signed by the president there in article 2. i get it, that if we pass the wrong kind of legislation, it's unconstitutional, the courts in article 3 get to make that decision. but we have a responsibility as the 435 members who serve in this chamber, who are not the bosses of this country, but who are the servants of the true bosses of this country back home, we have a responsibility to maintain the authority on capitol hill that the constitution provides. last week the courts said unanimously, 9-0, that the president can't just decide what the law is and what the law isn't. that the law exists independent of the president and his job is to follow those laws. that's pretty clear here. you get into article 2, in fact, we all take that oath when we get elected, we swear to uphold and defend the

constitution, the executive power shall be vested in the president of the united states. the legislative power vested here. and so the supreme court said unanimously that the president had overstepped his bounleds, that what he did was -- bounds, that what he did was unconstitutional. i have a quote that they used and it's important to me, mr. speaker, as i suspect you hear the same thing from your constituents back home, folks say, why can't you get something done? why can't you get something done in washington? what are you guys arguing about? why don't you get something done? aren't there some things out there that you can do to make a difference in people's lives? i'm proud to say that we have collaborated on a number of those things. but folks feel the friction in this town. the friction of people who believe different things about what the future of this country ought to look like. and here's what the supreme court said, and i love it in its simplicity, mr. speaker. the supreme court said last week, regardless, the recess

appointments clause, this is the clause that was being debated, this is the exceeding of his constitutional authority that the president embarked upon, regardless -- the recess appointments class is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction. it is not designed to overcome serious constitutional friction -- institutional friction. it simply provides a subsidiary method for appointing officials when the senate is away in a recess. here, as in other contexts, friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure. the friction that you hear about back home, mr. speaker, the frustration that our constituents express about why folks can't get something done, why can't you agree, why is there a big argument going on? that friction, the supreme court says, is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure.

and the concern then, mr. speaker, is in the name of avoiding that friction, some folks want to throw out parts of this constitution. and my question, not just for members in this body, mr. speaker, but for every single constituent who votes in our national elections, what is more important, is it more important to get something done , is it the ends that are the most important, or is it the means and the means that were provided to us were provided in 17 7, that great -- 1787, that great summer in philadelphia, where minds came together and laid out a structure that has successfully protected the power of the people for over 200 years. is it the ends or is it the means? and i tell you, i don't attribute any bad motives to the president, mr. speaker. i don't. i don't attribute bad motives to the president. but i will tell you that in making the recess appointments that led to this unanimous

decision, that when the president did was unconstitutional, the president prioritized the ends. he knew who he wanted in these job positions, he knew the senate would never approve these people for these job positions, and so he said, who cares what the senate thinks, i'm going to put them in anyway and the supreme court said, no, you're not. no, you're not. now, the great shame for us, mr. speaker, is that it should have been the congress that said that. should have been the congress that said that. most specifically, should have been the senate right across this chamber that said that. it should have been the senate that stood up for the power that is not their power but is the power of the american people to engage in this great balance that is our form of government. this great balance that has inevitable friction. we've got to decide for ourselves, mr. speaker, in this chamber and across the country, are we republicans or democrats or are we americans?

are we green party folks and independent folks or are we americans? is this about which party wins and which party loses or is this about america? and america is not a place on a map, mr. speaker. you know this better than most. america's not a place on a map. america is an idea. america is a set of values. there's so much more that unites us in this country than that divides us. and my challenge to my colleagues, mr. speaker, is that we rise to the occasion to protect and defend this document, no matter how small, no matter how simple, no matter how much it gets in the way of getting something done, this u.s. constitution is designed to protect those freedoms, to protect those common goals, to protect that which makes us who we are as americans.

i'm not trying to figure out who to blame, mr. speaker. i'm trying to figure out how to solve it. and when the supreme court, again, if you've watched the supreme court, these folks, they can't agree on what time to meet, mr. speaker. they disagree about so, so much . 5-4 decision after 5-4 decision, this divided court, it's almost a term, mr. speaker. it's not the court, it's the divided court. that's the way it always shows up in the newspaper. the divided court. said this congress and the american people have abdicated their responsibility to rein in this executive branch and ensure that the law was followed. and here's the thing. mr. speaker, you know what i'm talking about, i signed up to be on the oversight and government reform committee. the oversight and government reform committee is that committee that is responsible,

is responsible for going in and making sure the laws are followed and fatefully executed and i joined that committee, mr. speaker -- faithfully executed and i joined that committee, mr. speaker, and you may think it foolish, but i joined that committee because i thought mitt mitt was going to be the next -- mitt romney was going to be the next president of the united states. so long i've seen republicans in congress protect republican residents and democratics in congress protect democratic presidents. so i said, i'm going to sign up for this oversight committee because i'm a hard core republican and i want to be the hard core republican who rides herd over the romney administration but a you don't get a free pass because we're from the same party. you don't get a free pass because the constitution doesn't give you a free pass. you don't get a free pass because my obligation is not to you as a fellow republican, my obligation is to my constituents and to my country as an american. .

i wanted to bring back that idea that we as a congress -- not as we as republicans and democrats in congress but we as a congress, not we as the house but we as the house and the senate, we as the congress have a common goal and a common responsibility when it comes to the future of this country. now sitting over there on the oversight and government reform committee people think i'm a political hack. i try to give advice and council to the administration about what they're doing wrong, people say, he's just a republican. he doesn't like what's going on in the administration. nonsense. 9-0 the entire united states supreme court said what's going on in the administration is wrong, not wrong as in a mistake but wrong as in the constitution prohibits it. rong as in it is not allowed by that most powerful law that governs this land, the united

states constitution, and everybody in this town knew it, knew it the day that the resident took that action. and yet too many in this town were silent. we got to do better, mr. speaker. we got to do better. there is still a lot that unites us than divides us. love of this constitution that protects our freedoms is one of those things. so where can we start, mr. speaker? where can we start? i have one recommendation. it's a small one. i've had the experience in my 3 1/2 years in congress, mr. speaker -- you may had the same experience that if you can begin to agree on the little things then the bigger things get a little bit easier to agree upon, right? you sort out those things that you have agreement on first, you lock those in as part of the final deal and then you go out and you tackle the biggle

things. so you start small and you build. it's true. it's true of exercise. it's true of almost anything. start small and build. i'm thinking about the consumer financing protection board, mr. speaker. now, you may think, rob, consumer financial protection board, for pete's sake, it's just some little bitty agency under the federal reserve. well, it's not. it's not. it's a big agency. it's a growing agency, but the most important part is what i said finally in that sentence and that it is under the federal reserve. this is what happened. this is what happened. and this as 2010, body, this body, led by the financial services committee chairman at that time, barney frank from massachusetts, passed what has come to be known as the dodd-frank act. named after chairman frank on this side and chairman dodd over on the other side. the dodd-frank bill.

it went after wall street. it went after wall street. this was in the aftermath of bank failures. this was in the environment that folks were concerned about what the economic future of america would be. much like they are still today. this purported to solve so many of these challenges through more regulation. now, we can argue about whether or not this was a good plan, bad plan. i think it's costing us with economic growth. not helping with economic growth. that's not my point here today. my point here today is that as a body, as a u.s. house of representatives when we passed that dodd-frank bill which went over to the senate and was passed and went over to the president's desk and signed and is now the law of the land, we created an agency called the commodity futures trading commission and we specifically and ex-- the consumer financial protection board and we specifically said that this is not responsible -- i want to

here, mr. out that speaker. we are charged with protecting the united states constitution which difficulties up power in this country. -- divies up power this this country. it is not come from the government and given to the people. it is lent to government for a short period of time. the power belongs to the people. it is lent to government for a short period of time. yet, in our collective wisdom, and i surely use that term loosely, we decided that we would create a brand new federal agency capable of spending hundreds of millions f dollars per year, capable of implementing hundreds of billions of dollars in regulations on america's small businesses, that we would create this agency out of -- out of the air. it had never been existed. we would create this brand new agency and we would place it

somewhere beyond the oversight of this body, that we would bestow it with powers to crush businesses, to enable businesses. give it these powers and place it somewhere beyond the control of this institution. it is unique, mr. speaker, as you know in that its funding stream comes directly from the federal reserve. that would be the guys who print the money. turns out when you can print the money and lend the money you can make a lot of money. accountability over that money is almost nonexistent. there's a renovation going on at the cfpb going on. renovation. this is an agency that's been around three years. the most recent inspector general's report, mr. speaker, tells us they're spending $215 million to renovate their building. $215 million. almost a quarter of a billion

dollars just to renovate. just to renovate a building. now, when i try to evaluate building space, i try to do it on a square foot -- on a square foot basis, right? what's it costing per square foot to renovate, right, because you do have to renovate? that's a fair business decision. according to the financial services committee oversight and investigations committee, is amounts to a $590 per square foot renovation cost. $590 per square foot. well, if you're in the real estate business your jaw has already dropped. but if you're not in the real estate business let me give that to you comparatively. i don't know if you've been to trump world tower in new york, mr. speaker. $334 per square foot is its cost. most expensive city in the country. $334 per square foot compared to $590 with what the cfpb is

doing. i don't know if you've ever been out to las vegas, mr. speaker, but you probably have een "oceans eleven" a time and two, the big billagio, it's the backdrop of so many movies that hollywood puts out these days. it's really kind of the definition of deck dance in that part of the -- decedance in that part of the world of $335 per square foot versus $590 for the cfpb. maybe $590 is the answer. maybe it is. whatever is going on at the cfpb that it costs twice as much to build their offices as many lucks your yuss -- luxurious office or hotel. i am not here to do oversight over that institution. why? because it's funding -- its funding comes directly from the

federal reserve, not from this congress. how does all this come together, mr. speaker? well, the answer is still in this little old book, still in these little pages from the summer of 1787, a fabulous painting right outside these chamber doors, mr. speaker, of that summer in 1787. george washington is presiding. ben franklin is seated there. all the constitutional convention delegates are there as they craft this document. and what they decided was we were going to have to have an executive to execute the laws. you can't execute the laws by committee. it was going to be too complicated. you need an executive to execute the laws. but an all-power executive is what those constitutional delegates had been fleeing in england. that's what the revolution was all about so they were suspicious of an all-power executive and so they created the congress first, article 1. and said the power of the

purse, the power of the purse, spending of the money will reside here because if you cut off the money to that executive that has run amuck he won't be able to run amuck any longer. that was the theory. that was the plan. and yet this body is compreating institutions -- and by this body i mean this body before you and i arrived here, mr. speaker. before you and arrived here, not on our watch, but just four short years ago, began to create government agencies and institutions that were beyond the reach of our oversight, beyond our ability to defund, beyond our ability to control. it may be the best agency on the planet but it shouldn't be . yond

mr. speaker, i'll end where i began. are we republicans and democrats first or are we americans first? are we northerners and southerners? are we independents and green party? are we -- are we move on and tea party? who are we first? and the answer for me has always been, i'm a citizen first. i'm an american first. this great country that i have inherited, i didn't build it. i didn't sign my name to the declaration of independence pledging my life and my fortune to success. can you imagine, can you imagine what it took in a time f great uncertainty when the -- and my name is rob woodall and i pledge my life and my fortune that freedom will come

to this land? oh, mr. speaker. that's what i've inherited. that's what you've inherited. that is what every single child born on these sacred shores inherits. what every immigrant who travels from far and takes that oath, what they inherit, and it is our responsibility to preserve it. when we concern ourselves with the ends and believe the ends justify the means, we will trample this constitution at every occasion, at every occasion and you need look no further than the supreme court decision last week, mr. speaker, where unanimously, unanimously these men and women entrusted with upholding this constitution. said friction between the

branches is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure. i dare say an intentional consequence of our constitutional structure. i know there's a lot of pressure on folks, mr. speaker, from their constituents back home to get something done, but implicit in that is to get something done the right way, to get something done the right way. there are serious men and women on both sides of this chamber, mr. speaker. there's serious men and women on both sides of this capitol. there are serious men and women working in this administration who all love this country and want it to be better tomorrow than it was yesterday. we cannot, we cannot allow our zeal for results to trample the document that has enabled the results that we have had so far. and so i challenge my colleagues, mr. speaker,

whether you're the most conservative republican or liberal democrat or anywhere in between, mr. speaker, i challenge each and every one of to decide that if we have a bad process we are going to end up with a bad product. but that our constitution, no matter how cumbersome, our constitution, no matter how deliberate, our constitution provides that framework where whether we win or lose on a particular policy our principles of freedom and opportunity will forever be preserved. i want to get good policy out of this chamber, too, mr. speaker. i want to get good policy out of this town. i want to make differences in the lives of people back home, but not at the expense of the birthright that i have inherited which is this great country and the experiment in self-government.

i believe we are worthy of that birthright. i believe we can rise to that occasion, but it's not going to happen by accident, mr. speaker, and it's not going to happen just inside the four walls of this building. it's got to happen in the hearts and the minds of every single family in this country who are the true leaders of this nation. . and i hope that will be their instructions to us each and every single day. with, that mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from michigan, mr. bentivolio, is recognized for 33 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. bentvolio: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, there's a lot of uncertainty and instability in the middle east. violence and chaos are persistent themes and political uprisings, revolutions, insurgencies and a winning

democracies have controlled the dialogue on -- and waning democracies have controlled the dialogue on the middle east in the last several years. but will you find another story just under the surface. a story that we don't hear quite enough about, the plight of christians as a religious minority in the middle east. just the other day, i had a meeting with a few of my constituents who are coptic christians and we discussed many of the issues facing the coptics in egypt. coptics are the native christians of egypt who have been a part of the egyptian community since the fifth century a.d. they're still one of the largest christian minorities in the middle east. coptics in egypt face growing threats of persecution, violence and restrictions on religious practice. they have been targeted for kidnappings. in 2013 st. mark's cathedral was attacked during a funeral

ceremony for coptics and a muslim who were killed in prior violence. after president morsi was removed from office in july, 2013, a wave of violence against christians ensued. hundreds of churches, homes and businesses were attacked. violence against coptic christians in egypt is nothing new. and i fear that it will persist unless something is done to resolve the issue. madam speaker, in iraq christians are facing a dire situation as well. i just read a report that two nuns are believed to have been kidnapped while they were visiting an orphanage for girls. they are believed to have been kidnapped by isis. they are fleeing iraq as an alarming rate -- at an alarming rate and many have sought refuge in my home district of michigan. they're concerned about what is happening in iraq, as many of them still have family there.

churches and homes are being a tted and destroyed -- looted and destroyed and this leaves few options for the community other than to flee. if the situation in iraq doesn't reverse, it is likely that the majority of iraq's remaining christian community will have to seek refuge elsewhere. madam speaker, syrians are also continuing to face troubling times in the middle east. since the beginning of the war in iraq in 2003, syrian christian communities have been targets for attack. churches and monday stares have been targeted for -- and monday ies have ve -- monestar een targeted for attack. nearly 300,000 syrians were killed. like many other christian populations in the middle east, they have fled and sought refuge elsewhere.

madam speaker, in iran the harsh persecution of christians continues. according to a u.n. report, iran has continually imprisoned christians, citing national security as the justification. there's a visible example of christian persecution in iran. although have been -- there have been numerous calls for his release, he's still sitting in prison. he was sentenced to prison by a judge who has been known for religious freedom violations. his trial was decried by human rights groups as unfair and flawed. ethnic christians such as ar mainians are often under surveillance or forced to the tell their activities to the iranian government. profit stant christians are also viewed unfaveably by the iranian regime. furthermore, converts from islam face particularly harsh consequences as they can be

charged with blasphemy or face charges from revolutionary courts for political crimes. these countries are all listed by the united states commission on international religious freedom as tier one countries of particular concern. meaning they are the worst perpetrators of rnls freedom. however, the secretary of state has not officially recognized either egypt or iraq as a country of particular concern. likely due to the united states' security interests in both of those countries as a designation would carry the likelihood of sanctions. madam speaker, many of my constituents and i are grateful concerned about the plight of christians as rnls minorities in these countries -- with as religious minorities in these countries and the role the u.s. played in aiding them. madam speaker, if you want a friend, be a friend. this notion applies directly to the situation at hand.

religious freedom and human rights concerns have long been at the back of the line in u.s. foreign policy decisions and it may be time to rethink our approach. we have continually supported regimes that are unfriendly to their people. religious and ethnic groups and even the united states. madam speaker, if we are going to support foreign governments with equipment and funding, we must more thoroughly consider the long-term impact of the freedoms of their people and the corresponding impact on relations with the united states. countries that continually abuse religious groups such as christians are never going to see eye-to-eye with the united states because they lack the fundamental belief in the freedom of religion. which is the founding principle of this country. if we want friends in the middle east, we have to encourage respect for religious freedom and dweverts. not just build strong -- diversity. not just build strong

governments and militaries. if we do this, strong relationships with these countries will be an inevitable outcome. and they will be more stable as a result. madam speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. madam speaker, world english dictionary defines invasion among, among the definitions is invading with armed forces. but it's any encroachment or

intrusion, the onset or advent of something harmful, as in a disease, pathlogically the spread of cancer from its point of origin into voundsing tissues -- surrounding tissues, under random house dictionary the definitions include the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease. entrance as if to take possession or overrun, and it gives the example, the annual invasion of the resort by tourists. and also infringement by intrusion. comes from middle english, from the 1400's. our hat's where we get

word invasion. in the english language. it's important because in the constitution, under article 1, section 8, it says that congress has the authority to call for the military during times of invasion, that's the congress has that power, that's why it's in article 1, and then as i mentioned yesterday, you have article 1, section 10, which the third clause, there's three little clauses or sections there, they're not numbered, but the third section says, no shall -- state shall, without the -- without congress, keep ships of war in times of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power or engage in war unless actually invaded. and it gives an or. or in such eminent dangers will

not admit for delay. we know that the invasion into france by the allied forces consisted of about 150,000 troops. was the 000 people biggest invasion in history. and since then, we come up to the year 2014 and "the new york times" reported that just in he recent months we have had 240,000 adults and 52,000 children, now it's being reported that it's closer to 60,000 children, as i understand the article said, since april, just two months,

we've had nearly 300,000 people invade the united states through texas. and then it's now being reported that there are 300,000 people making their way up from central america to the united states. now, the administration and some of my friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, they're coming because of this massive violence that they've been facing. well, there is more violence there than there is in much of the united states, perhaps it's comparable to chicago. so if they're wanting to come to a country where there's less violence, maybe they don't want to come to a country that includes chicago. perhaps if chicago maybe had more gun control laws, maybe it wouldn't be so violent.

that's my first thought. and then i realize, wait a minute, chicago has more gun control laws than about anywhere else in the country. yet massive murders. so, obviously if people are coming to america from central america, they don't want to be sent to chicago. they don't want to be sent to a place where there's more violence than where they've been living. but we're told, that's why they're coming. well, actually when i was on the border a couple of weeks ago, and i will be there this that i saw people interviewed, the people that were there that i talked to with the help of an interpreter, they said nothing about violence they were coming from. they had gotten word that this president, this administration was going to allow them to stay and not send them back.

and that's why those who had parents who have been illegally in the country, like one little girl, her mother had been here since she was a 1-year-old. but now that they've gotten word in central america that if you come illegally into the united states, the department f homeland security is not providing security to the united states, no, they're providing security involved in human trafficking, becoming explicit in the criminal and illegal activity going on, they're actually -- they've actually given up their role there on the border of homeland security and now they're involved in destroying our security. they're transporting, along with health and human services, forget the word health, do you really want people in charge of now, ealth that are right

as i speak here on the floor of the house of representatives, involved in transporting people all over our country with diseases like tuberculosis, h1 n1, with i can be fatal, who knows how many kinds of flu that people may not have been lice, ed for, scabeys, all kinds of diseases that the department formerly called health and human services is w engaged in spreading bad health and disease around the country. thank you so much, health and uman services. so, we are in a time when the administration in charge is

engaged in more lawlessness than any time in my lifetime, hey're engaged in actually , olating the hippocratic oath if the national leaders were doctors and took that oath, they said, first do no harm. yet harm is being done by this administration as they're spreading people around the ountry that are coming in in massive, invasive waves, and our heart goes out to them. when i see these children down on the border, middle of the night, what kind of parent sends their child or sends word back home, hey, listen, i've got a good job, i've been woking here illegally for a number of years and even though i really hadn't done anything for my child over the last several years, heck, now that the u.s. has given benefits,

feeding, providing health care, giving lawyers to people that come in, especially children, bring them on up. . heck, we may bring in lots of people. and so in story today from "the washington times," obama seeks brisk passage of border children funding bill. and of course he wants to do that because it would subsidize lawyers for illegal immigrants. people are fond of referring to the institution saying, well, -- constitution saying, well, we have to make sure that people have their constitutional rights. but guess what, the constitution doesn't guarantee the same rights to everyone. it does not guarantee the same rights to immigrants who come in legally. it does not -- for sure it does not provide the same rights to those who come into our country

in violation of our law from the beginning. it does not provide all of the same freedoms and liberties to our members of the military. as a former member of the united states army, four years on active duty, i find it extremely offensive that an dministration will seek to coddle terrorists who have killed americans in cold blood and been thrilled that they did so and have written that they're thrilled that they did so and will see a chance they'll kill many more americans. they coddle them and give them more rights than we do our own united states military members who are laying down their lives and willing to lay down their lives to save this country.

that's right. under our constitution article 1, section 8 gives congress the power to provide what rights the military will have, what discipline will be utilized. that's how it was constitution for congress to pass the uniformed code of military justice. and i can assure you in the military you do not have the right to freedom of assembly when and where you want to. otherwise i would have indicated that to my commanding officers at 4:00 in the morning when he wanted me to be out there to go 20 miles at 5:00. i would have indicated a lot of things if i were able to have freedom of speech in the army because there were times when my superior commissioned officer gave orders that i thought were absolutely stupid. but you don't have all those

same constitutional rights everybody else does. it depends on who you are and where you fall under the constitution. and when it comes to immigration, naturalization, that is a power reserved for the united states congress. and as my old constitutional law professor, david gwen, says there's only one court in the entire constitution that's created. every other court owes its entire existence, jurisdiction and actually ability to remain in existence to the united states congress. that's why it's actually amusing when i hear people who e fairly smart, some of them educated in the ivey league and despite -- ivy league and despite the education that they missed out getting as good as

they might have gotten somewhere else like texas a&m, they think they got a good education and they think under the constitution everybody gets are the same rights. they do not. and i've heard people even from ivy league schools that says everybody has the right to be in a u.s. district court. well, that's interesting because there's no right to even have a united states district court because if congress decided to eliminate all district courts and create some other kind of court system, we could do that. that's totally up to us. we get to set up whatever tribunals is the word that's in the constitution underneath the supreme court that we care to or not set it up.

it's up to congress. that's the authority of congress. so the president thinks we need to provide lawyers for illegal immigrants, and that's so interesting and i'm sure that's the perspective he gets. know from ed kline book, there are indications that his abled advisor, valerie jarrett, according to the book, is quite concerned about who's going to be the last person to give our person advice because he's so easily swayed so they try to make sure he's not last advised by someone that disagrees with valerie jarrett or michelle obama's position. well, unfortunately he was just at a big fundraiser in dallas and lo him by lawyers,

and behold he says he wants laurd to be paid for out of this $3.7 -- lawyers to be paid for out of this $3.7 billion. isn't that something? there are lawyers that are providing their services for ree to illegal immigrants. there's no constitutional requirement for someone coming into this country illegally to get a lawyer. it's not there. it's not even in the shadow of a pinumbra. it's just not there. well, if you break down what the president wants money for, there's money even in his $3.7 billion, not for the military so that we can provide for the common defense, but for leadership training for those who have come into our country illegally.

yeah, that's right. we need to train them for leadership so they can be good community organizers, and maybe if they learn well at these leadership training courses and they really pick it up, well, maybe they, too, can be a acorn, a lace like place where they can train people how to vote democrat. a place where they can make sure they take voter registration forms out to other eople who came in illegally. madam speaker, what is happening in this country is outrageous beyond measure. those who say, well, sure, it's a certainty, these people, we're told about 80% of the

people coming, 78%, 80% are adults and 20% or less are actually children and they're saying they're coming to avoid violence. yet, there's been no big spike in violence, so why all of a sudden this huge influx? and though the administration officials say with a straight face, well, we're just totally surprised. then we see from january they re requesting transportation in the near months for tens of thousands of children that would be coming in. was said orally. they have induced, lured, encouraged people to flood into

our country, an invasion. and then they prepared for the invasion. and now they say if you don't give us $3.7 billion we're going to let it keep happening. oh, yeah. they don't use those words, but they might as well. when there's a far simpler solution, and if you want to really get down to the bottom of what's going on, madam speaker, you can look at a map of central america. these countries where most people are coming from, coming over 1,000 miles up through mexico, risking life and limb to travel that far, so-called unaccompanied children that couldn't possibly come that far without help. why, right on their borders you have costa rica, you have panama, you have anything rag

with a. you don't -- -- nicaragua. you don't have to go that many miles to get to those places. there are places of peace in those countries, so if this were really all about escaping violence and you really cared about a child, the last thing you would do is send them over 1,000 miles and put them in the hands of drug cartels that may abuse them, sexually abuse them, sell them into sex trafficking, use them as drug they could just send those kids to a neighboring country where they speak the same language and where they ould be cared for. this is not about people running to america to get away from violence.

also, we shouldn't be granting asylum to people that are lawfully in mexico. we saw the article this week. mexico's worked out an rrangement with got -- guatemala where they'll come into the united states illegally. that bheen that mexico and -- that would mean that mexico and guatemala are conspiring to violate united states law. well, if they were in the united states, that would allow pursuit of those countries through rico, but since they're countries it's a different situation, but that is a criminal enterprise when you conspire with another to help violate united states law. an article here from

"washington free beacon" as of july 10, unaccompanied alien children program already cost $ 263 million. gee, for the 57,000 children here, you could take the $3.7 billion and give them each $67,000 and we'd be a lot better off because that $3.7 billion, if we do what the president wants that doesn't actually stop the invasion that's going on, we're going to have to be spending that over and over and over again. so i'm not advocating we give everybody that comes in $67,000 . i'm just pointing out it would be cheaper to do that than what the president's proposing. ory from -- story says illegals could cost feds up oto

$1,000 per ds up to bed. well, i'm staying at a cheap hotel in mac allen and i know it doesn't cost me $1,000 for the bed i'm staying in. but here is a time in -- there is a time for congress to say enough is enough, mr. president. initially we didn't want to believe that anybody would intentionally lure people into the united states. we hope that it was a reckless or negligent act and not intentional but look at the evidence. it hasn't been stopped. even with $3.7 billion that's requested, there's no way for what that's being called for is going to stop the invasion

that's occurring and that's why i'm hoping that my governor will utilize article 1, section 10, that allows a state that is being invaded -- in our case more than twice as many just in recent months, more than twice as many than invaded france on that with a doubling of oming en route, on their way here now under article 1, section 10, the state of texas would appear to have the right, ot only to use whatever means, hether it's troops, even using exacting a , even

tax on interstate commerce that wouldn't normally be allowed to have or utilize, they'd be entitled in order to pay to stop the invasion. texas could under article is, section 10, engage in agreements with, say, arizona , new mexico, i don't know that california would agree. they are too busy sending jobs to texas right now. but the states could enter a scompact to work together to stop the invasion. actually if texas just simply did what woodrow wilson did after poncho vila's thugs killed a bunch of american families, crossed our border to kill them, one of my least favorite presidents in our history, woodrow wilson, sent this new

thing called the national guard down. you can read all kinds of different versions of how many national guard troops he sent to the border, whether it's 19,000 or 159,000, whatever it was, he sent thousands of national guard troops to our border. and it was secured. nobody came in that president wilson did not want to come in. he also sent general pershing into mexico in pursuit of poncho vila. he caught some of the lieutenants. never caught poncho vila. i'm not advocating an invasion into mexico. i'm advocating strongly we stop the invasion into the united states. want to talk about compassion for children? well, my children have now finished college. but i go to schools all over

texas. i look in those precious little faces just as i have looked at the precious little faces of people coming in illegally, but those whose parents are paying t. theyeing law-abiding know their schools are having trouble, many places, staying afloat. many school districts are in desperate trouble financially. and now we are going to add hundreds of children in someplaces whose parents are not paying taxes, property taxes to support the schools, many cases, and you're going to overwhelm those schools because you refuse to do the job the constitution requires and an oath was taken

to faithfully execute? we owe this country an obligation to protect it, to protect those little children whose education will be impaired because you have to slow it down to bring other students along who don't teach the language. right now in texas i'm told that basically you need to speak spanish. you really do. why is that? well, because the president's allowing so many people in the country illegally without stopping the invasion and we are being forced to educate those folks. when you talk to people, as i have, down around the border, people, border patrolmen, constabbles, others, who find dead body -- particular landowners, find dead bodies.

one border patrolman tells me that when he finds the dead body of a child, he goes home and weeps. what are we doing, mr. president? we are luring people here, and children are dying, because they think, gee, they are not enforcing the law. this president's not enforcing the law. he's not protecting the country. the security is down. so we can go rushing in. it's not to avoid violence. they might go to a less violent place around them. it's to come get the benefits, and the trouble is now that we and welfare country, more more people will overwhelm the system, and it does move us toward being a third world country. now, i have taken a lot of abuse for saying that this action also

includes include an effort to turn texas blue. people have said, how outrageous is that? that you might think that a president or an administration might actually take action or just for ake action political gain? well, let's see. here's an article from red state 2013, points out that headed by former field director of obama for america, battleground texas sole aim is to turn texas from a so-called red state to another california, that is almost singlely controlled by liberal democrats. according to the video, a 501-c-3 organization whose mission is to maximize the number of uninsured americans

who enroll in health coverage made available by the affordable care act, is sharing data with battleground texas. so they are actually using government money to turn texas into a state that votes more for democratic candidates. democratic e from group, says, the lone star state is changing. and it goes on to say, from top to bottom of the ballot we can change the face of texas politics together. it goes on to point out how texans are carrying this movement and its success could change the face of presidential politics in this country as we know it with 38 electoral votes

at stake, a blue texas would be a sure-fire road to the white house. and for the first time that i am aware of, we had a president that didn't decide to stop his campaign apparatus after he got elected for a second time. and his expressp intent of turning texas into a democratic tate -- democrat voting state. madam speaker, the motives have been widely expressed. it's time to stop the invasion. and we have the power to do it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. gohmert: move we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next for morning hour

there are similar provisions to provide roughly the same amount of money, roughly under $10 billion for highway project. the house today passed a bill regarding business depreciation practices and our capitol hill reporter has more and we will show you today's house floor debate on the bill. the house is set to take up

the bonus depreciation bill and debate tax reform, the tax extenders, the tax code reform in the coming days and we are joined by pete strader of "the hill." what with this bonus depreciation part of the building? >> this particular bill under traditional tax law, it's a -- if a business buys a certain piece of equipment, can they can usually deduct the value of the equipment over years as it appreciates. this bill allows companies to reduce 50% of the cost in the first tier which is a way to incentivize businesses to buy equipment and invested their companies. >> you read about the white house opposition to the bill. this is the headline -- in the article you say the white house is calling it a corporate giveaway. what do a main? >> the specific complaint from the white house that house republicans want to make this particular tax provision permanent and extended indefinitely and don't want to come up with any paperwork

because they argue that a tax cut for businesses does not necessarily need that offset. the white house points out that it carries a significant price tag of about 287 billion dollars and they say republicans have opposed a number of their provision saying they need to be offset and they're taking issue with the fact that republicans want to make a business tax break permanent. >> groups like heritage action are calling for passage of the bill. who are some of the key conservative members there working on to get this thing passed? >> it should have brought republican support. ways and the house means committee easily so it will have brought republican support. it should not have a problem getting through the house and a maple some of the democrats -- and it may pull some of the democrats. the key debate is what they do when it comes to the senate. it's trying to push a much shorter extension of this particular provision as they try to get extenders done in

two-year increments as opposed to permanent. >> we hear this term tax extenders. what do they specifically refer to in this debate? particular package of tax revisions that are temporary and expire on oregano basis and often times congress decides they want to go ahead and extend them. that happened several times every couple of years when this comes up so we tend to call up the extenders package. this is a set of provisions including the bonus depreciation and about 50 others that expire at the end of 2013 so the effort is to try to get those provisions extended retroactively through 2014 and 32015. house republicans like to see several of them become permanent. >> what about the senate? the senate led by ron wyden is pushing a limited approach and want to talk about doing extenders in a two-year extension.

this is so they can revisit the debate at the end of 2015. they say does not make sense to make these permanent when you want to continue having this debate about the tax code going forward. >> it seems like the house and senate are far apart. any chance of the bills are passed in both bodies that it can be done before the end of this session? >> the expectation is that some sort of resolution will be reached. the timing is a key piece of it that it seems the leaders of both parties really don't want to see these tax revisions go away. they are just debating about how they go about handling it. senate majority leader harry reid has indicated he was to take it up he does not think it will come up until after the midterm election in the lame-duck session. is reportingoeder on "the hill." we thank you for your up eight. rrent tax code is a wet blanket on this economy. it puts our

-- the update. his current climate, businesses aren't growing and hardworking americans are seeing stagnant wages and fewer hours. adding insult to injury, the united states is the only country that allows important pieces of its tax code to expire. the result, businesses and their workers are left constantly guessing whether certain policies will be around next year, hurting their ability to plan for the future. the national association of manufacturers told congress that the expiration of bonus depreciation at the end of 2013 has had a chilling effect on the economy. this statement is sporpped clearly by the fact that during the months of 2014 total capital investment across the country fell by almost 12%. a major factor on why the entire u.s. economy contracted by nearly 3%. a survey of nam members found that a third of business owners would not make any investments this year without bonus

depreciation and section 179 expensing, which the congress voted to make permanent in a bipartisan basis in may. this bill would provide a permanent 50% bonus depreciation deduction and make the deduction available to more farmers and businesses across the country. in congress we always find a way to make things more complicated, but today we can enact a simple bipartisan provision that provides an immediate incentive for businesses to invest and hire new workers. bonus depreciation has received long-standing bipartisan support and has been renewed on a short-term basis nine out of the last 12 years. so after so many years of this policy being in place, it's time for us to agree that we should make it permanent so businesses can do what they do best, invest in the economy and hire new workers. the effects of making bonus depreciation permanent are real. analysis done by the tax

foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation would grow the economy by 1%, which would add 18 -- $182 billion to the economy, would increase capital stock by over 3%, would increase wages by about 1% or $500 for an individual making $50,000 a year and would create 212,000 jobs. growing a healthier economy, creating jobs and helping americans see bigger paychecks is exactly what this country needs. making 50% bonus depreciation permanent is supported by associations representing a variety of industries -- farmers, telecommunications, manufacturers, energy, construction, retailers and technology. over 100 groups have voiced their support for bonus depreciation stating that it will provide an immediate incentive for businesses to make additional capital

investments, thereby boosting the u.s. economy and job creation. this provision has gained strong bipartisan support in the past as have many of the permanent tax policies the house has voted on this year. by making long-standing features of the tax code permanent, we can facilitate a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code. such an overhaul in turn will create an america that works with a strong vibrant economy. today's vote will bring the immediate economic relief so many businesses and hardworking taxpayers are asking for. i urge my colleagues to join us in making a stronger, healthier economy by passing this legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i have a point of order against the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i have in my hand a copy of the budget act of 1974. if you look at section 311,

it's entitled enforcement of budget aggregates, and the bill before us, mr. speaker, violates that section of the budget act because it cuts the revenues below the levels that were set forth in the republican budget that was passed on this house floor with much fanfare on may 15. the bill before us does not keep the revenues at those levels, and i would like, mr. speaker, for the purposes of this point of order to point out that on may 15 of this year, chairman ryan, chairman of the budget committee, filed a statement in the congressional record reporting the current revenue level for fiscal year 2015 and the remainder of the budget window. and this is what he said when he filed that. and this is, mr. speaker, in the record of may 15, page h-4428. this is what mr. ryan said. .

this is needed to implement the section 311-a of the budget act which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. this piece of legislation, mr. speaker, as you can see, clearly violates that provision of the statute of section 311-a of the budget act, because it increases e deficit to the taxpayer by $287 billion above what was cited in the budget resolution adopted by this house. a clear breach of the rules. so, mr. speaker, i ask that the point of order be sustained and that the house republicans have to live up to their own budget resolution, which, as i say, they passed with much fanfare not that long ago. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from -- mr. camp: may i have be heard on the point of order. i would just say that the gentleman's position has absolutely no merit. after the failures of this administration to grow the economy and create jobs we have an economy that's contracting, we have more kids living at home than ever before, we have real wages declining. after the failure of the policies of this administration to get the economy moving -- i do not yield. mr. van hollen: parliamentary inquiry. parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan will suspend. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from michigan wish to direct his comments to the point of order. mr. camp: i do. after the failures of the policies of this administration, the house has spoken and the gentleman's position has absolutely no merit. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, further on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: the gentleman from michigan clearly wasn't addressing any of the issues raised in the point of order. i would ask the gentleman about

section 311-a of the budget act, which is what this point of order is based upon. let's talk about the point of order. the gentleman, chairman of the ways and means committee, voted for the house budget act. he voted for it. and now he's bringing to the floor of the house a provision that violates the same budget act that that budget was passed pursuant to. so, mr. speaker, let's continue to focus on this point of order. what we have here is a situation where republicans came to this house floor not long ago, passed that budget, and are now here on the floor today with another bill that violates the budget act section 311-a. i would like a ruling on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the chair prepared to rule. the gentleman from maryland makes a point of order against consideration of the bill. any such point of order is untimely at this point. the gentleman from maryland is free to engage in debate on the bill. the gentleman from maryland is recognized.

mr. van hollen: is the point of order as a result of the fact that the republicans apparently passed a rule that waives the section 311-a of the budget act? the speaker pro tempore: the legislation before us is already under consideration. therefore the gentleman's point of order is not timely. the gentleman's point of order would have had to be made before the legislation was being considered. the point of order -- -- the point of order of the gentleman from maryland is not timely. van hollen: did the republican rule, did -- mr. van hollen: did the republican rule, the rule that was brought before the house, include a provision that waived section 311-a of the budget act? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may consult house resolution 661 to answer that question. mr. van hollen: parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. i'm looking at that and it does indicate to me that the house

republican rule actually waived the statutory provision that requires that the bill that they brought to the floor comply with their own budget. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is free to motorcycle toes points on the debate on the rule or debate. mr. van hollen: i point out -- the speaker pro tempore: the not recognized. the gentleman from maryland will suspend. the gentleman from maryland is not recognized. the gentleman from michigan, mr. evin, is recognized. mr. leffin: -- i the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: mr. van hollen raises such an important point.

what's being done here is totally inconsistent. and i'll come to that a bit later. you know what's really important today about this bill is not what's being done here but what's not being done here. this bill and mr. van hollen points out how inconsistent it is, but no matter how inconsistent, it's going nowhere. and it should go nowhere. essentially what it does is to make permanent what has always been considered temporary. bonus greeshation, which has been tell pore rare -- depreciation, which has been temporarily enacted during the previous two recessions, to help

assist the economy during the short term, that's what it has been. allows companies to write off investments more quickly than normal. providing them an incentive to make capital investments now rather than later. and that incentive actually disappears when the provision is made permanent. and that's why c.r.s. has said its temporary nature, and i quote, is critical to its effectiveness. secondly, it's unpaid for. talk about consistency. talk about a budget bill that talks about the importance of deficit reduction. and here you have the republicans proposing a bill at would add $287 billion in

debt. and that would bring the total of the bills that the republicans have brought forth here to over $500 billion. when all is said and done, house republicans will have added more than $1 trillion to the deficit. more than $1 trillion by permanently extending a select group of corporate tax cuts. but let me just say i must confess i'm amazed at the inconsistency of this position. it was five months ago in the chairman's and the republican ways and means draft that they proposed to eliminate this provision entirely. bonus depreciation was gone, and

now they come forth and they say let's make it permanent. that gives inconsistency a bad name. it's appalling. it's really also dangerous. let me indicate why. the more than $500 billion in tax spending that the house republicans will have approved today is the equivalent of what we spent last year on all nondefense domestic discretionary spending, which republicans have cut so deeply in recent years that it's at its lowest level on record as a percentage of g.d.p. that includes spending more such vital domestic priorities as health research, food safety, and veterans health.

and left unaddressed in this approach of the republicans are key domestic priorities such as the new market tax credit, the work opportunity tax credit, and the renewable energy tax credits. o here we are. fortunately this bill is going nowhere. there likely will be an extension of bonus depreciation in an extender package, if we ever get to it, but for a short period of time costing a fraction of this bill. so what's really important today is not a bill that is going nowhere and should go nowhere, but for what is not being done. i just want to list what is not being done.

immigration reform, a senate bill not being brought up here by the house republicans. unemployment insurance, a senate bill providing help for those looking for work, not brought up here. the employment nondiscrimination bill, the senate bill, not brought up here. paycheck fairness, not brought up. a minimum wage bill, not brought p. eximbank caught in the contest and the conflicts within the republican conference. a highway bill, we are going to get next week another patch. another patch. the inability of the house republicans to face up to the need for a long term highway bill. and voting rights reform? you have a bill sponsored by a

enior republican in this house and it has not seen the light of day. so, mr. speaker, what we have today is a bill, and i just want to finish by saying how appalling it is that the republicans come forth and say, ,et's make permanent unpaid for costing $287 billion, , when in the proposal that they put forth , this provision would have been eliminated. that's 180 degrees in a split second. it just shows, i think, the hypocrisy of bringing this bill up.

made especially hypocritical when there's been this utter failure to address all of these other legislative proposals. many of which have passed the senate. so we are going through the motions here today. it's really a sad moment for this institution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield such time he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, a member of the ways and means committee. mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, control the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman camp, for your leadership on this important issue. your leadership on the tax writing committee. if we would have had similar leadership in the senate and at the white house, we would have a

different discussion today and that would be one on comprehensive tax reform. unfortunately, we are not having that discussion because there hasn't been leadership. there's been zero leadership from this white house. and after 5 1/2 years of this president being in the white house, he still doesn't want to take responsibility for this economy. taxes are higher. we have more regulations. we have economy, an economy that's sputtering along. in fact, the facts are the first quarter of this year our economy retracted. retracted. this bill is a jobs bill. it's that simple. it's a jobs bill. we have had bonus greeshation -- depreciation since 2002. this isn't new. it's been in the tax code under temporary law since 2002. extended many times, many times

retroactively. it expired, lainl, in december. i was talking to a -- ladies and gentlemen, in december, i was talking to a c.f.o. of a large american manufacturer this week, and he said to me, you understand when you retroactively do this it doesn't help our economy. and when you only do it in essence for one year, which is the narrative that my friends on the other side of the aisle are acquiescing to, this is a fruitless waste of time because of just accept the senate bill that passed out the senate finance committee at the end of the year, which will retroactively extend bonus depreciation back to january of this year for another year, next year, 2015, that doesn't do a whole lot to grow our economy.

it's better than a sharp stick in the eye for one year. but if you talk to a c.e.o., a business plan for several years, so when a business owner who's a manufacturer buys up piece of menry to make a widget, it -- machinery to make a widget, it costs a lot of money. guess what, you can make more widgets. you can hire a new employee. the new employee makes money, pays taxes to the city of columbus, pays taxes to the state of ohio, pays taxes to the federal government. more tax revenue. a job. more jobs. that's why hundreds, hundreds of businesses and organizations are for this piece of legislation which has been around unpaid for for 10 years. i mean, think of the logic

here, ladies and gentlemen. if we extend spending, we tell the american people that it don't cost them any more money. tax cut nd a current so stopping a tax hike, it cost them more money. that's washington, d.c., math. it makes no sense. that's the inconsistency. bottom line, mr. speaker, this is about jobs. this is about our economy. this is bipartisan. it doesn't need to be partisan, and i have said before i don't want to give up my voting card to the u.s. senate. let the house speak. let's have a good old-fashioned conference committee. i don't expect i'll get my way. i know chairman camp expects he will get his way. we'll have a good old-fashioned compromise. i know that's a dirty word sometimes around here. but as my sixth grade daughter

says, isn't it supposed to work, the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill, then you kind of work out the differences and it goes to the president? yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. i wish the folks on the other side of the aisle would allow us to change this narrative that, well, the senate won't accept this so let's just take the senate bill. mr. speaker, i want to reserve the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield five minutes to another member of our committee, mr. doggett from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. doggett: republicans say they would like to help, but they claim we just don't have enough resources for medical research to address cures for alzheimer's and cancer, parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and other dread diseases, diabetes, for example. wildfire season is approaching and there are not enough resources to begin planning to

prevent those wildfires because there's not enough money to actually address the fires when they begin and delay is occurring. we have hurricane season, tornados all over the country, not enough money for the national weather service to give us all the details we need. and only yesterday we learned that republicans were refusing once again to correct the bankrupt transportation fund. the best they can do is postpone the bankruptcy into next year after the election. as our highways crumble, bridges literally fall down, and as for comprehensive safety inspection of our food and our drugs, like to do it but just not enough money. and there are not enough funds available to monitor effectively infectious diseases or to produce vaccines to stop other diseases. not enough to adequately staff our federal prisons. not enough to fully fund federal law enforcement. certainly not enough to provide

strong, effective foster care for the many children that are removed after abused and neglected from their homes. and work force development so we can be competitive with our friends abroad, well, there doesn't seem to be the resource to permit children from pre-k to postgrad to achieve their full god-given potential. but while there is so much of vital needs that we just don't seem to have the resources to address, these same republicans tell us today that we can afford to borrow from the chinese or the saudis or whoever will lend to us the resource to deliver bonuses to some people. they urge more public debt to fund more bonuses, and while they rightfully argue on every expenditure program that we should be looking for evidence-based, that is programs that actually work and promise and pro-- and provide

the promise to outcome and we ought to eliminate duplication and inefficiency, they have absolutely no interest in evidence-based tax expenditures, which is what is involved today. when the evidence conflicts with their ideology, they abandon evidence and pursue ideology. the evidence-based approach to this particular expenditure could not be clearer. what's involved here is that when any business goes out and obtains a machinery, a vehicle, a truck, a building, they depreciate it over the useful lifetime of that asset. standard accounting principles. and what's involved here today is washington math. it's washington manipulation of traditional accounting rules. it's a matter of violating those traditional accounting rules, and we have learned from the economic studies that that is a very sorry, not evidence-based investment. indeed, even as a stimulus, the

analysis shows that for every dollar that is invested we get 20 cents of growth. a fellow could go bankrupt with that kind of economics, and that's exactly what they would have the country doing and not meeting its other needs while funding something that doesn't work. both the federal reserve bank and goldman seahawks, not exactly a democratic organization, -- goldman sachs is, not exactly a democratic organization, says this treatment, if it expires, will not have any significant economic output. any economic impact. rather, today's bill is an example of the very kind of waste and inefficiency line items that they always say in campaign rallies they can discover and eliminate but today they are perpetuating. i am for a pro-growth, pro-job creation set of government policies, including tax policies that promote

competitiveness. it's competitiveness that involves an adequate transportation system, a trained work force, the research in medicine as well as in technology to help us compete, but we don't have the federal resources to hand out one bonus after another to corporations when we know it won't work, when it will not grow our economy at the same time that the same people that are advocating policies that don't work refuse to pay for policies that do work. we should reject this bill. it is not in the interest of the country. it may be good politics in an election year, but it is bad economic policy as near every economist who has looked at the issue in an objective way has concluded, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: i'd like to recognize and yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, a member of the ways and means committee and an outstanding member of the select revenue subcommittee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. we all know the short-term tax policy is bad for business, bad for the economy and bad for jobs. and yet we've heard today from our friends on the other side of the aisle that -- a couple of things. number one, some have argued we are too busy. there are too many other things to be dealing in congress and so forth and we ought to be doing other things rather than this. i guess are you could make that argument. i don't think it's really persuasive. we can do all these things and they're not mutually exclusive. there are some that argue that somehow this proposal is a manipulation. that's what the gentleman from texas described it. i think the manipulation is having something in the tax code that we know we need to make permanent and not making it permanent. so let's manipulate the adverse effect out of the tax code. that's what we should be doing. there are some that have said this sin significant.

i heard that a couple -- that this is insignificant. i heard that a couple of minutes ago. this is not insignificant. according to the tax foundation, they say this, permanent bonus depreciation would grow the economy by 1%. that's not insignificant. it would increase capital stock by over 3%. that's not insignificant. it would increase wages by 1% and it would create over 200,000 jobs. that is not insignificant. that's according to the tax foundation. so what is the choice? the choice is to vote no and walk away from that type of growth, mr. speaker. now, who would do that? you get these types of numbers. according to the tax foundation by just pushing the green button. you get that type of growth by voting yes and then getting out of the way and letting the economy come back and do the things -- the gentleman from

ohio is not overcharacterizing this. the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, who has great insight, by the way, is not somebody who's saying, well, this is the panacea and it goes away. that was the hype during the stimulus debate. the characterization, well, you just spend $1 trillion and it's all going to be roses after that. there is hardly anybody that says the word stimulus on the other side of the aisle with a straight arrow. it's been completely eviscerated from the talking points at the white house. but the point is we can do something significant today, not monumental, not colossal but to characterize the type of growth that the tax foundation has said this will yield to as insignificant is either not a clear view of economic reality or just too dismissive and too much a view that we can just be save yors in this situation. we can do -- saviers in this

situation. we can do some good things today. we can support the gentleman from ohio. we can move this economy forward. i urge an aye vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: look, to the gentleman from illinois, i favor long-term tax reform. he helped produce a long-term proposal that eliminated this provision. it eliminated it. and now you come down and say you want to make it permanent. you are -- i guess i can't speak directly to you. mr. roskam: if the gentleman will yield? mr. levin: i'll be glad to yield. mr. roskam: so you make a fair point in that perm nancy is something -- permanency is something we need to strive for. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan's time has expired. mr. levin: i'll yield myself another 30 seconds -- another

minute. mr. roskam: so i take your point that it's a good thing and you and i are -- mr. levin: i said long term. my point is you, six months ago, helped produce a package that eliminated this provision and now you come here and you say you want it permanent. this is acrobatics. this is congressional acrobatics. you are just spinning in an opposite direction. and you're making this place a circus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. levin: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. kind: i thank my friend from michigan for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, this place is riddled with ironies from week to week and this week is no different. yesterday the ways and means committee was working on a markup of legislation for another short-term extension of the highway trust fund. you know, the transportation infrastructure investment we desperately need in this

country. we were scratching and clawing to try to find an additional $10 billion over the next 10 months to try to keep some of these projects moving forward, and yet here today we have another permanent change to the tax code at a cost of $287 llion over the next 10 years and not a nickel of it paid for. our roads are deteriorating, our bridges are falling down. i'm afraiding it's becoming an insult to third world nations today. we're becoming a fourth world nation. so having this fruitless debate on the floor yet again, knowing this legislation won't be moving forward, we ought to be having a hearing in the ways and means committee to develop consensus on a six-year transportation bill that every needs in des pretty our country but we're not doing it. the only thing during an

election year is support tax cuts without paying for it. yet, every economist and virtually every business owner will tell you that substantively this doesn't make any sense either. the whole point of bonus depreciation is to try to spur capital investment at a time when the marketplace has frozen up. and it is fear uncertainty preventing business owners from moving forward on their capital purchases. you take away na temporary nature of bonus de-- that temporary nature of bonus depreciation and you ruin the whole desired effect of what you're trying to accomplish. but i have a feeling that the chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. camp, and others on the committee, they already know this. and that's why earlier this ear when they introduced their comprehensive tax reform draft, they completely eliminated bonus depreciation. and not only that, they clawed back the accelerated depreciation, which is the basis of this as well. in order to help pay for a lowering of rates overall. and i would submit of the 14 tax bills that would permanently change the code that have been reported out of the committee so far at a cost

of close to $900 billion, none of which is being proposed, if we support those measures and they get enacted into law, we might as well kiss comprehensive tax reform goodbye because the tools that we'll need to be able to lower the rate and broaden the base and make our code more competitive are taken away from us. and if you permanently extend bonus depreciation, you take away an important tool when we do run into recessionary times, with business -- when businesses may need additional capital and get off the sidelines. but that hasn't been the problem here. since 2002 we've had bonus depreciation. we got a track record now. you look back on it. most economists will tell you it's been dubious at best. the 2000's were the worst job growth decade in our nation's history. when president bush left office in 2008, he had a net negative job growth during those eight years when he was in office. . since bonus depreciation expired at the end of last year, we have

been averaging every month close to 240,000 additional private sector jobs being created in our economy today. that's without bonus depreciation being in place. what we ought to be doing today is having a serious discussion of how we can come together as an institution and find a way to help pay for a six-year infrastructure bill that will create jobs, that will start spurring economic activity that we desperately need, that will lay the foundation for long-term economic growth with a viable infrastructure system that's there to sustain it rather than having another debate that we know is going nowhere. that's unfortunate, bus we do, i agree with my friend from texas, we need a pro-growth competitive economic policy for the american people. one that recognizes reform the tax code to help our businesses large and small to be more competitive globally. one that also recognizes that there's important public investments that we have to make as a nation in order to ensure the type of growth in the

future. part of that is the infrastructure investment that's being neglected or 23 extensions merely being kicked down the road with short-term measures. part of it is having a top flight quality education system and a work force development system so that we've got the best educated, best trained work force in order to compete with increased global competition. it's broadband expansion in every inch of our territory. it's basic research funding. it's these type of things that, yes, we are going to need resources in order to do an effective job. we keep coming to the floor week after week calling for permanent changes to the tax code without any ability to pay for it. that's going to hinder our flexibility in the future to really spur the type of economic growth and job creation that we desperately need. i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this. let's start coming together on a real pro-growth strategy and work on the jobs we desperately need. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr.

speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i yield to mr. roskam. the american people it must be confusing. we have had bonus depreciation, this tax polcy, tell porery for over 10 years -- policy, temporary, for over 10 years unpaid for, supported by many on the other side of the aisle. unpaid for. temporary. many times retroactive. yet moving that policy forward for 10 more years the same way it's been paid for over 10 years costs money. bad policy. even though we are giving for the first time certainty, predictibility to people who actually create jobs in america who must have a business plan and must make those big purchases. amazing. with that i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes.

mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i just wanted to address two of the criticisms that i heard from my colleagues. the gentleman from michigan makes a fair point about permanency. look, permanency is a great goal. permanency in tax reform is an outstanding goal. in this current environment it becomes clear that the president of the united states has made raising marginal rates a precondition for tax reform. we are of the view that that doesn't help grow the economy. the president claims his orthodoxy that it does. so it's not likely that this is going to be a massive tax reform effort is going to be completed. then the alternative is, what do you do in the meantime? i think in the meantime what we do we make this provision permanent, it keeps opened the opportunity for us to revisit tax reform in the future, but we ought not to be leaving the types of numbers i mention admit ago, just to refresh your wreck check, mr. speaker, those

numbers were by voting yes, according to the tax foundation, it grows the economy by 1%, increases capital stock by over three, increases wages by 1%, and creates over 200,000 jobs. now, the gentleman from wisconsin made an interesting point. there were several assertions, but one of them i found to be very, very broad. he says, substantively this doesn't make any sense. those were his words. those aren't my words. those were his words. now, think about that assertion, mr. speaker, in the context of dozens and dozens and dozens of business groups who say, this does make sense. including from his home state, the wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, the rhode island manufacturers association, the american farm bureau, the associated equipment dealers. illinois manufacturers from my home state, and, mr. speaker, from the great state of kansas near and dear tow, the kansas

chamber of congress. all of which say this makes sense. this is not dubious as the gentleman from wisconsin said that dozens of economists from all over the world have said, oh, this is a in fairous plot and it's completely not going to do anything? that's ridiculous. this is good. the gentleman from ohio has been working on this for months and months and months. while it's not about him, he brings great insight into this debate and there's an opportunity by voting yes according to the tax foundation to grow this commifment i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds, let the facts be shown in 2006 and 2007, bonus depreciation expired, and it was renewed when the recession really took a hold. and c.r.s. has said, research

suggests that bonus depreciation was not very effective. we'll renew it but not for 10 years costing $287 billion made permanent. i now yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, also a member of our committee, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. million davis: thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the ranking member for yielding. the longer i listen to this discussion and debate, it reminds me of a game that children play. around and around and around and around we go, round the mull berry bush. because we keep going around and around and around. i strongly oppose the bill that is before us, that would make bonus depreciation permanent. yes, i support bonus depreciation.

a short term basis to boost is conomy if there is letdown. and to provide some incentives to do things that we might not be doing. $287 cannot support adding billion to our deficit for a permanent corporate give away while tens of thousands of my constituents and tens of millions of americans experience deep poverty, unemployment, and economic distress. h.r. 4718 is a corporate give away that even the republican tax reform bill repealed. there is a tremendous need to incentivize economically distressed communities like many parts of chicago, other urban as

well as rural areas. and those incentives have lapsed . they are threatened. we are not sure they are going to be coming. this bill continues the republican legislative focus on the wrong issues. ignoring the key programs that create jobs, strengthen our citizens, and grow our economy. just imagine what unemployment insurance does. it gives the person who does not have a job the knowledge that something is going to be coming to go to the grocery store and buy milk or bread. or what happens when there is employment opportunities, if roads and bridges are being repaired.

a person gets a sense of confidence that there might be work for them to do. i remember the song several years ago about get a job. the guy said that every day when he reads the paper, he reads it through and through. trying to find out if there is any work for me to do. ut his wife says, get a job. and individuals who have become because no matter what they seem to do, there is no relief. so how could i vote for this 3.3 when there are still million long-term unemployed individuals who have not been aided?

i can't go to church on sunday or walk down the street without when is sking me congress going to do something about our unemployment checks? are they going to come? or they ask when are the repairs going to be made on our roads and bridges? when are we going to get some new sidewalks? how do you fix the potholes? that are erupting all over our community. when are we going to really take care of the medicare physician, the doctors fix. when are we going to stop irrational budget cuts that strangle education, research, and innovation? when are we going to provide confidence and hope? when are we going to stop the

process where the rich continues to get rich and the poor continues to get poor, and the middle class gets squeezed in to where we almost create two groups and two categories of people. those who have much and those who have little. so i would urge that we vote no on this bill and give confidence to the american people that their needs will be taken care of. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: may inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 15 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has six minutes remaining. mr. tiberi: before i yield to the gentlelady from kansas, i would like to submit for the record a letter from over 100 associations that represent thousands of employers and job creators, of whom represent

hundreds of thousands of employees. in the letter they say, this piece of legislation that we are about to vote on today helps them create jobs and increases productivity. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tiberi: with that i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from kansas, distinguished member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is ecognized for three minutes. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yeelingd and his leadership on this very important issue. i rise today to support this bill to make 50% bonus depreciation permanent, because it grows the economy and creates jobs. short of comprehensive tax reform, a permanent e. tension of bonus depreciation is our best option to grow the economy, create jobs, and lift wages. this bill is important to kansas manufacturers and kansas farmers and ranchers. the tax foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation would grow the economy by 1%, adding $182 billion to the

economy, increase wages, and jobs. over $210 thousand the -- 210,000 jobs. the joint committee on tax says this legislation could reduce the debt by as much as $10 billion. most importantly today's bill moves our tax code in the right direction. it is broad based in that it does not pick winners and losers and does not favor one type investment over another simply it favors investments and the types of capital that create jobs and puts more money in team's pockets. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts for three minutes, another distinguished member of our committee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: we are here for a faulty effort for one reason and one reason only, failure of fundamental tax reform. now, a good faith effort was made in terms of drafting the proposal but it really didn't go anywhere. now, i would note in this stitution, known for its emotions, that the response of the democratic minority to the camp draft proposal was fairly muted thinking that this might be a worthwhile start to an ongoing conversation that would be bipartisan and bicameral. a good start we had. the model that we embraced over three years really worked quite

well, without the glare of publicity, we actually had an adult conversation back and forth between the parties, the stakeholders and heard from virtually everybody you could hear from. well, when the proposal was response licly, the on the republican side was one s. historyonic let's not try this, let's not try that. even though an academic exercise had been undertaken that was worthwhile. so tax reform was killed in the crib before there was even an opportunity to have a conversation. now, mr. roskam, my friend from illinois, he said everybody on this side is afraid to use the word stimulus. stimulus, stimulus, stimulus,

stimulus. i'm going to use it and i'm going to use it in the motion to recommit. stimulus has worked in america in economic history. when america actually did big things. mr. lincoln found time during the midst of the civil war to form the transcontinental railroad. mr. roosevelt did the panama canal. mr. o'neill and mr. reagan did the big dig in boston. these are worthwhile undertakings that need to be done and not to shy away from the principle of economic growth under the guise of a remedy that has dubious economic consequences. now, let me say this as well. and i intend in the motion to recommit to speak to it. remember the days when tax policy here was done between the two parties? remember when there was a healthy give and take where we actually talked about our

differences in the quiet of the ways and means room? still the most desired committee to sit on in the congress. mr. levin: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. neal: we start out with a bona fide effort to do tax reform. this is not the way to do tax reform. we need to go back to the drawing table and draft a proposal that the american people will come to seen as competitive and highlight the role optimism has played in american public life. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, is recognized. mr. tiberi: i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, distinguished member of the ways and means committee and health subcommittee chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank mr. tiberi for bringing this very important jobs bill to the floor. this is the slowest recovery most disappointing recovery in half a century.

we're miss being five million jobs from our economy. we have a lot of small businesses struggling. the average family in america, average family of four is missing over $1,000 a month from their paycheck, their budget because of this disappointing recovery. so what's missing? well, it's not government spending. that's above where it was in 2008. it's not family spending. that's above what it was. what we're missing is business investment. when businesses along main street buy new buildings, new equipment, new software to make themselves more competitive, that's when jobs occur and that's what's missing in the economy. what this bill does is make it more affordable for our local businesses to immediately write off, deduct from their taxes a portion of what they buy in equipment and software and technology that makes it more affordable. it allows them to do more of it and that creates jobs along main street. that's what this bill is all about, creating not government jobs, not temporary jobs, not stimulus jobs. this is about creating jobs

along main street, by letting our local businesses invest. it has always been a bipartisan bill. this is an area republicans and democrats agree on. unfortunately it's an election year. you're going to hear all of the arguments against it, but the truth is our local businesses are struggling. they need this tax relief, and our economy needs the jobs because we're not going to get back to a balanced budget until we have more people working and more jobs created and more revenue coming in the door. i commend our leadership for bringing this very important business bill, jobs bill to the floor and i urge republicans and democrats to come together to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: could i ask the gentleman from ohio how many speakers do you have left? mr. tiberi: i'm prepared to close, mr. levin. mr. levin: we may one more speaker.

let me yield myself such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i'd like to read the statement of administration policy. administration strongly opposes house passage of h.r. 4718 which would permanently extend bonus depreciation rules that allow corporations to speed up deductions for certain investments and thereby delay tax payments. this provision was enacted in 2009 to provide short-term stimulus to the economy and it was never intended to be a permanent corporate giveaway. moreover, h.r. 4718 includes no offsets and would add $287 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, wiping out more than 1/3 of the deficit reduction achieved by the american taxpayer relief act of

2013. the deficit increase in 4718 is more than 20 times the cost of the proposed extension of emergency unemployment benefits urge offset cans house republicans are also making clear their priorities by rushing to make business tax cuts permanent without offsets, even as the house republican budget resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million working families and students. and by letting important improvements in the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit and education tax credits expire. the administration wants to work with the congress to make

progress on measures that strengthen the economy and help middle-class families, including pro-growth business tax reform. however, making costly business tax cuts permanent without offsets represents the wrong approach. if the president -- and this is underlined -- were presented with h.r. 4718 his senior advisors would recommend that e veto the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, is recognized to close for debate. mr. tiberi: may i ask a question. the gentleman said he had one more speaker. mr. levin: i yielded back. tier tier sorry. the speaker pro tempore: you have 11 minutes remaining.

mr. tiberi: the choice is very clear. as the gentleman from massachusetts said, a friend of mine who i agree with on a lot, we should be here to talk about comprehensive tax reform and not temporary tax policy. my years here in this united states congress, in my years more importantly on the ways and means committee, there hasn't been a chairman that has been more bipartisan, more inclusive and made a stronger effort to comprehensively, comprehensively reform our tax code than chairman dave camp. if he would have had a partner in the white house and a partner in the senate to move the ball along as far as he did , quite frankly in a very bipartisan way, we wouldn't be here today. but here's the facts. for the past 5 1/2 years barack obama has been the president of

the united states of america. here's a fact. the first quarter of this year 2.9%. nomy retracted this bill is about a jobs bill. simple enough. and in fact during my time on the ways and means committee, putting chairman camp aside, without chairman camp, with other chairmen, we haven't had any bipartisanship. we haven't had tax bills. we didn't have an effort to comprehensively in a bipartisan way have a tax code rewritten. it's only been chairman camp. so we can talk about theory and academics, but here we are today with one choice. in an economy where it's not where any of us want to be in 5 1/2 years with barack obama as president, we have a piece of

legislation that we know creates jobs, that for 10 out of the last 12 years hasn't been paid for. 10 out of the last 12 years hasn't been paid for. and no benefit to job creators for long-term certainty. none. zero. ladies and gentlemen, we've already submitted for the record hundreds of associations that represent thousands and around s of employers the country who create jobs for hundreds of thousands of employees who say this is one of the best job creating tools they have. i know people who want a job. they'd rather have a job than unemployment insurance. they want a job really badly. something my dad said something to me a long time ago when he lost his manufacturing job of

25 years, most important thing is a job. and that's how simple this is, ladies and gentlemen. that's how simple this is. 5 1/2 years, we have higher taxes, more regulations. this is about jobs. this is what job creators want. let's give them what they want. let's go to the senate. let's have a conference committee. let's work it out the good old-fashioned way. i know the gentleman from massachusetts and i, if we got locked in a room, we could work it out the good old-fashioned way. let's do it. i urge my colleagues, let's not make this partisan. let's make this bipartisan, as it should be, as it has been and go work with the senate to get this done and help americans get a job. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired on debate, pursuant to house resolution 661, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on -- the question is on engrossment and

third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify and make permanent bonus depreciation. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. neal: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from massachusetts opposed to the bill? mr. neal: i am opposed to it in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. neal of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 4718, to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith with the following amendments -- page 3, line 22, strike or. page 3, line 24, strike and and insert or. page 3, after line 24, insert the following -- mr. neal: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading? the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to waving reading of the motion?

without objection, the reading is waived. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to direct my comments to the other side. mr. tiberi, who is indeed my friend and a terrific guy, said that there is no partner at the white house. when we undertook this very significant proposal on tax reform, it wasn't the white house. it was the speaker of our house, the speaker of this house who said blah, blah, blah. now, i want to tell you, i am not bilingual, mr. speaker, but would you -- when you tell me blah, blah, blah, i get it. it ain't going anywhere. to blame the white house when the speaker of the house poured cold water on it is outrageous. now, we've heard of several companies that have been proceeding with inversion. force those of you paying attention -- for those of you

paying attention to this, it means a company moves offshore, is not a corporate citizen of america but instead they will reincorporate to a foreign address for the expressed purpose of avoiding american corporate income taxes. so the proposal that we have here is pretty simple. . as they line up the dam is blaking. i hear in the next few weeks that up to 47 companies as congressional research service has pointed out, are lining up to leave. they include manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and financial service sectors. we should be doing fundamental tax reform as mr. camp laid out the proposal. but the issue of inversions and depreciation before us today while seemingly unconnected are intimately connected. given the republican opposition to chairman camp's proposal, we cannot move forward on a house bill that reforms our tax code in a current or meaningful mode

at the moment. but we can do it without changing the nature of the legislation. we can in fact address the issue of by linking inversion to the purpose of bonus depreciation. through that we can suggest that any company that moves offshore cannot take advantage of corporate inversion and bonus depreciation simultaneously. that's what we are proposing today. now, i have a history with bonus depreciation. remember nancy johnson, a republican member, bill english, a republican member? i supported with them the use of bonus depreciation, as mr. roskam wanted to hear me say, stimulus, stimulus, stimulus. on a short-term basis, bonus depreciation makes some sense. but not to make it permanent at the cost of $867 billion. friends, to do bonus

depreciation separate from fundamental tax reform is economic nonsense. we need a comprehensive look at the code and reminding ourselves that bonus depreciation is but the following. a tool in the toolbox to make economic repairs. now, this proposal that our republican friends have said with this cost attached to it is the least offenseible of all the extended proposals that they have offered. our own congressional research service says, you do bonus depreciation for a short-term purpose to provide an economic stimulus during a recession. it's, quote, a temporary investment subsidy that is expected to be more effective than a permanent one for short-term stimulus. its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness. now, this is important to remember here today.

chairman camp repealed bonus depreciation, period. now we are bringing it back to be made permanent on a friday morning with no thoughtful or deliberative discussion other than the speaker of the house saying, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. what i'm suggesting here today is that we cannot afford to hit $825 billion on this or miss chance that we are taking to do fundamental tax reform in this way. let me get right to the nub of what we are proposing. what this motion to recommit does, it keeps bonus depreciation as always intended, a temporary tool in our toolbox in an economic downtown. this is a common sense piece of

legislation that extends bonus depreciation for two years, in a thoughtful and deliberative way. and then we go back to fundamental tax reform. then we take it up in a much more integrated way. now, lastly, if you voted yesterday for the delauro amendment, you need to be consistent today and vote for this motion to recommit which addresses the delauro amendment -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. camp: thank you. i withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: while i'm pleased to hear my colleague on the other side actually agrees with me that we need bonus depreciation, because this motion to recommit extends that policy for two years. but the reason why i oppose this motion to recommit is because, again, this is temporary tax

policy. we are the only nation in the world that allows important tax provisions to expire. we are alone on that. nobody else does that. that's why it's so important we make this policy permanent. let me just say, the economy is contracting. 2.9% in the last quarter. it's not growing. we are growing the wrong direction. we have people whose real incomes are declining. people out of work. more kids are living at home than ever before. we need to do something permanent to get this economy growing. look, families are struggling in america. let's do something pro-growth. something permanent. certainly we agree on the policy. you just don't want to do it for as long as we do. we want to make this permanent. we have done it for 10 years, for all practical purposes, with the uncertainty we have agreed that the policy should be permanent when you do it for that long. but let me just say, look,

temporary policy never works. we have more than 100 associations and businesses, representing millions of workers that have come forward and said, please make this policy permanent. we support what you're doing. we need it so we can have the certainty that we need to make investments. look, the tax foundation has said that if we do this, if we make this permanent, we'll grow the economy by 1%. that we'll add $182 billion to the economy. we'll increase stock. we'll increase wages by 1%, which is $500 for an individual making $50,000 a year. let's give america a raise. let's vote for this bill. let's vote against this motion to recommit. let me just also say, a lot of americans know that the country's going in the wrong direction. but what they are really concerned about is, they don't see us doing anything to make it better.

we can restore the american dream, not have it be some remnant of the past, if we support permanent tax policy, reject the temporary nature of this. vote no on the mot here is more on the agenda next week and beyond as representative kevin mccarthy, the incoming majority leader, makes his first appearance discussing the schedule with minority whip steny hoyer. pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, mr. speaker. 'm pleased to now yield to i suppose the majority leader-elect.

a few weeks from now. but we'll be doing the colloquies and i appreciate his stance. we had the opportunity to have lunch. i'm hopeful we can have a very productive rich: as i'm sure this house and -- relationship as i'm sure the house and the country hopes. i'm pleased to yield to the majority lead hrn elect. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i look forward to a very strong working relationship with you. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at 12:00er to morning hour and 2:00 prime minister for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:0 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business, last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, no votes are expected. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next

week, complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 5016, the fiscal year 2015 financial service and general government appropriations act sponsored by chairman crenshaw. members are advised that the debate on the bill and amendments will begin monday night after the 6:30 p.m. vote series. members are further advised that it is possible that we will have an additional vote series monday night on amendments to the financial service appropriations bill. for the remainder of the week, the house will consider a package of five tax bills from ways and means that will help foster charitable giving. these five bills that will be included are h.r. 2807, the conservation easement intendtific act of 2013, authored by representative gerlach. h.r. 4619, making the rule allowing certain tax-free

distributions from individual retirement accounts for charitable purposes permanent, authored by representative schock. h.r. 4719, which will permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory authored by representative reid. h.r. 3134, the charitable giving extension act authored by representative kelly and h.r. 4691, modifying the tax rate for excise tax on investment income for private foundations authorized -- authored by representative paulsen. the house will also likely consider the highway extension bill to ensure that the vital transportation projects continue during the busy summer construction season. and, finally, members are advised that the house may also consider an extension of the terrorism risk insurance act. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. i would ask him, we have now

completed six appropriation bills, the gentleman has announced we'll have a seventh appropriation bill, financial services, on the floor next week. does the gentleman anticipate doing the balance of the appropriation bills the remaining -- bills, the remaining five bills, before the september 30 end of the fiscal year? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman noted, as of last night the house has now acted on six appropriations bills, which is halfway through. and as i mentioned in the schedule announcement for the next week, the house will begin consideration of the seventh bill, the financial services appropriation act, starting on monday evening. and that's as much as i see for the next week. but as we move forward to the july calendar, i will keep you notified as we continue through. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. hopefully, i know he has the expectation, i hope that we would be asked to pass the appropriation bills individually, in a manner that

we've considered the previous bills on this floor. i note that the labor health bill has not been marked up in subcommittee and would simply ask him if, in light of the fact that that has not moved through subcommittee yet, would that be one of the bills that he would anticipate bringing to the floor before september 30? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do not anticipate that bill coming up next week, but as we look towards the remainder of the july schedule, we will certainly notify the members for the consideration of the house. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. of course from our perspective and i'm sure from his, very, very important piece of legislation. the highway bill that is coming to the floor, we know that that is critically important. it passed out of committee i think on a voice vote, although as the gentleman knows, there was substantial disdepreement on the length of term of that -- disagreement on the length of term of that. we're disappointed that we haven't given a longer term or

either done a short-term so we could do a long-term bill, giving confidence to contractors and jurisdictions around the country. but we find ourselves in a situation now where there are more than 100,000 transportation projects that could be delayed. so we look forward to working to not only move this process forward in the short-term, but we would like to and would urge , notwithstanding the fact it appears it's going to be a longer term, until may of next year, that we continue to focus on a long-term, confidence-building, we believe economy-growing effort at a longer term re-authorization of a highway program. the gentleman doesn't need to comment on that. i just wanted to make that comment to him. unless he wanted to say something on that. mr. mccarthy: if the gentleman will yield. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do want to thank the

gentleman and the other side of the aisle because as you did note, it did pass out of ways and means on a voice vote unanimously. we are committed, we want to bring the bill to the floor. fill the hole that we are committed to looking long-term, as many of the ideas that we have brought forth in the past. and we look forward to working with you on working on the highway bill. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. we passed, as the gentleman repeated and that extended -- it was not an extension from that standpoint, but the tax credit for vestments and equipment, depreciation allowance, we palsed that today. that was -- passed that today. that was a $287 billion cost. i would call the gentleman's attention, as i have with mr. cantor, we are still concerned on this side of the aisle, i know the gentleman knows this, that the unemployment insurance

bill that lapsed in december of 13 is still -- has still not been funded. there's some three million people who have fallen off that. d part of your new responsibilities, you will be focused on scheduling legislation. i would urge the majority leader to consider very seriously bringing that unemployment bill to the floor for a vote. we believe that it does have the votes on this house floor and we believe that the three million, and it's growing by thousands per month, who have run out of unemployment insurance, it's slowing our economy, but also obviously from their perspective giving them no support to support themselves and to help support their families. so i would urge the gentleman to look again at the unemployment insurance status. originally proposed to be retroactive, even if we look at

it prospectively, we would hope that the majority leader would look at that and consider whether we may move forward on that on this house floor. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his input. as i said earlier, in next week's schedule, i do not anticipate that coming up next week. but as we look towards the rest of july, i will keep all members posted. mr. hoyer: i appreciate not only keeping us posted but the focusing on that to see whether we might do that. tria, the gentleman has announced that tria is going to be under consideration. we believe this is a very important piece of legislation. it however passed out of committee on a party-line vote, as the gentleman knows. and there are still concerns that need to be addressed and i would hope that we could work on those before it comes to the floor. does the gentleman know whether that will come under a rule and whether or not that rule will

amendment an open process? mr. mccarthy: i thank for yielding and bringing up this issue. as i mentioned, the schedule announcement for next week, members should be prepared for a possible consideration of the terrorism risk insurance act. but once the timing is finalized, the rules committee will announce the hearing on the measure to determine the process by which the bill will be brought before the floor. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. as the gentleman knows, we only have 12 days remaining until the august break, of legislative days that we'll be in session. and only 22 days before the end of the scheduled session, prior to the election. the scheduled date is october 2 for us to adjourn. we believe this legislation is critical, again, for the economy, for confidence in the marketplace, to be passed. and so we would hope that to facilitate that, we could pass it through this body in a boip

way, which would make it he's -- boip way which would make -- bipartisan way which would make it easier for the senate to facilitate pass and get that bill president. so i look -- bill to the president. so i look forward to working with the gentleman to see if we might overcome the partisan vote that came out and replace that with a bipartisan vote, make some accommodations on both sides to accomplish that objectivive. and i appreciate his being willing to work on that. last -- next to last, the export-import next to last the export-import bank, i know there's work being done. i know the gentleman indicated it's not ready at least for passage. but we know -- this expires at the end of the year. we are very concerned about the adverse impact it will have. could the gentleman give me any information on where he thinks that consideration of that bill may be at this point in time? mr. mccarthy: would the

gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i yield. mr. mccarthy: do i not anticipate that coming up -- i do not anticipate that coming up next week. we will certainly notify the members if that will be considered on the house. million hoyer: again, i -- mr. hoyer: i did understand it's not coming up next week. the reason i mention time, we have so few days, legislative days left, we are going to need to plan to address some of these issues that i think are going to be very important to our economic growth. i know the gentleman's very concerned about that. we are very concerned about it. on our side. his members are very concerned about that. we believe that that export-import bank is a -- an economic growth, economic confidence building measure. we would hope we could address that. there are also, as the gentleman knows, 41 house republicans who signed the letter urging that be

passed and indicating their support of it, which we believe every democrat on this side will vote for that. that's almost 200 people. with the 41. clearly makes a majority of this house. we think it could be passed on this floor, and we think it would have a very positive effect on the economy. we would urge the gentleman to consider very carefully with his colleagues whether or not we can move forward on that. lastly, i would say to the gentleman, we are all very concerned about children coming to the border. concerned about the process of making sure that this humanitarian crisis is dealt with in a constructive, positive way for the children. but also in way that gives clear notice that america cannot have borders which are simply opened but must be able to authorize people to come in to this country. not have them come in in an

unauthorized fashion. in that respect, one of the problems, i don't know whether the gentleman had the opportunity to see the "wall street journal" editorial today, but they made it very clear that one of the problems is that because the system is broken, because we have not passed comprehensive immigration reform, and the gentleman, of course, based upon where he lives, obviously is very -- probably one of our more knowledgeable members on this issue, but the "wall street journal" observes that one of the problems is that people cannot come across the border and then return in a fashion which will provide for work here by them and also for them not only coming here but then leaving without an expectation they'll never be able to visit or work again. either family members or for the purposes of work. we continue to believe that the passage of comprehensive immigration reform would be a ameliorate the

present crisis we see at our borders. and we continue to hope that comprehensive immigration reform will also be an item on the agenda. although we have 22 days left between now and our october 2 projected adjournment, the expectation, i think, of all of is we will come back in a postelection session, so-called lame duck session. either before that, in the next 22 days, or in the session after the election, we believe it is critically important to address the immigration issue. the gentleman and i have had an opportunity to discuss this over the last couple of months. i know he's very knowledgeable about this issue and sensitive to this issue and i would hope we could work together to see whether or not we could put a bipartisan bill on the floor sooner rather than later.

i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate you bringing up the crisis at the border. many of the members in this house on both sides have been down to the border personally to see the crisis. i think that's foreign for all elected officials to go see. -- that's important for all elected officials to go see. we have a task force working on this. i know the president put for the the supplemental -- put forth the supplement. do i not anticipate that coming up next week, but as we look toward the remainder of july i look forward to working with the gentleman on that and other issues. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that response and hope that the supplemental, because it deals with a humanitarian crisis, would not be a partisan issue. we obviously need to deal with the immediate problem. i was talking about the longer term problem, but i appreciate the gentleman's observation with reference to the supplemental. i'm a supporter of that supplemental.

obviously appropriations committee needs to review it with respect to the proper levels of funding, but there is no doubt that we, right now, have inadequate resources to deal with the humanitarian crisis that confronts us immediately. those funds are necessary. i'm pleased that the gentleman brought it up and i look forward to working with him on it. unless the gentleman wants to make further comment, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on monday, july 14, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for x the house today convened for

business quitman depreciation. live coverage in about a half an hour. defense secretary chuck hagel will be meeting with his japanese counterpart at the pentagon. they are expected to discuss japan's recent announcement on collective self-defense and efforts to strengthen the alliance. at 315 p.m. eastern. all this week, the national governors association is holding its annual cyber -- summer meeting in nashville. kentucky governor steve bashir chairs the meeting on economic development. att discussion gets underway 4:00 p.m. eastern. our coverage is on c-span2. is on c-span2. >> i don't want to get metaphysical about a spa, but it is a good sport to be the past

time of a democratic nation, because democracy is about compromise and settling. you don't get everything you want, and baseball is like that. there is a lot of losing in baseball. everything that goes into -- every team that goes into spring training knows it's going to win 60 games and lose 60 games, and a whole season is to sort out the middle 42. if you win 10 out of 20, you win 11 out of 20, you have a good chance to play in october. it is the sport of the half loaf, as is democracy. >> george will, on his latest book of baseball and wrigley field and the reit -- recent controversy surrounding one of his columns. sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. it at the pentagon about half an hour at 3:15 p.m. with defense secretary chuck hagel and the -- and his japanese counterpart. but first, from today's washington journal.

host: joining us now, commissioner character. a felon, what happened. -- happened? >> after my nomination in 2004, i basically threw my name from consideration. i fail to pay payroll tax. basically, i went to a five-year investigation and i guess, in 2009 -- november of 2009, i pled guilty to eight felonies, most of which related to my children's nanny. i was sentenced to 48 months in

federal prison and i spent three in a minimumdays security cap in maryland. >> what was that experience like for you? guest: it is more profound than anyone knows, especially for someone who has been a law-abiding citizen, and someone who has been a law enforcement for 35 years. i had a pretty much impeccable career up to that point. prison, to be sent to to have your freedom taken from you, to lose your civil and

constitutional rights, to lose your children, pretty much, for profoundrame is more than you can imagine. it was extremely difficult. it was difficult then. it is probably equally difficult with the collateral consequence of the felony conviction, and it is something that no one wants to go through. no one. host: commissioner kerik, what are some of those collateral consequences that you talk about? u talk about? i think -- first and foremost, i do not think the general public, and even congress, who makes these laws, i do not think they understand ,he consequence of a conviction

of a felony conviction and what it does to an individual, their families, their children. you know, we live in a world promote ore most, -- say that america is the land of second chances. if you are convicted of a felony, regardless of what that felony is, there is pretty much no second chance. you are a convicted felon for the rest of your natural life. very with men in prison -- were first-time, nonviolent, low-level drug offenders, they were sentenced to 10 years. ofyears for five grams cocaine in a conspiracy. if they live to be 120 and never have another problem as long as they live, they will be a convict felon and will suffer

the loss of civil and constitutional rights, the loss of the right to bear arms. they will have difficulties, probably a 70% to 80% of faculty in retaining a real job -- difficulty in retaining a real job. rentwill not be able to apartments. they will not be able to get educational assistance. recently, the american bar association and the national association of criminal defense lawyers put together a three-year study on collateral consequences throughout the united states for a convicted felon, and i think the total 45,000in all was about different collateral consequences. don't get me wrong, i need people to understand there are people that belong in prison. there are people that belong there a long time. some may belong there for life.

but we put people in prison today, many of which did not need to go to prison, number one, to learn their lesson. they could have been punished by some alternative sentence or alternative means, be it home confinement, house arrest, a fine, ay service, a severe penalty, but we send them to prison. once we send them to prison and they come home, the collateral consequence of their imprisonment and their condition will last forever and i do not think anyone understands that. host: did you ever have these --ughts when you are your new york police commissioner or head of the department of corrections? guest: no. you know, what happens as a law-enforcement official or a

commissioner, you have a job. your job is to take that guys off of the street -- that guys street and off the you do not think about what will happen to them. don't get me wrong, i have put a longin prison for time, some for life, but these were bad people. me, shoot myill but then i met people that were sent to 10 or 15 years -- they were were commercial fishers who had caught too many fish. i never realized, never even

thought about those types of circumstances. we have evolved into a society where we now take a number of the regulatory issues and turn them into cons, -- crimes, turn that concept into criminal conduct, and i'm not saying these people should not be held accountable for their actions, but a commercial fisher that catches too many fish, fine him, penalized in some way, but to make him a convicted felon, to take his license away -- i was with the man that had been fishing since he was 17, 18 years old. he was now 55. he owned his own business for the last 40 years. he lost his business. he lost his life. he lost his life. his family was on public assistance because he caught too many fish. nine and.

-- fine him. you turned him into a convicted felon. the guys in the prime years of his life. he can now work. cannot get a job. as no business. -- has no business. cannot pay taxes. i do not see that as just. there is a way to address those issues without turning these people into felons and having them, it and the economy, -- them, and the economy, most importantly the economy, suffer internally. i do not get it. host: what would you like to see done -- pardon me -- and at what level of government? guest: first and foremost the mandatory minimums in the guidelines have to be addressed. either repealed or overhauled completely. i think -- i am not the only one

saying this. the attorney general himself has cited. former attorney general's have said. it.aid it is not a democratic or republican issue. this is coming from both sides know, house, where, you the legal profession is basically saying these things have to be addressed -- the punishments are too severe, the sentences are too long. they are destroying families. they are crippling our economy. the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines -- i think they have to be addressed. i think we also have to look at alternatives for incarceration. as i said earlier, home confinement and house arrest, fines and penalties, community service, we put a number of

professionals in prison that could be serving their community t. ways that we really need i you have doctors that have been arrested and charged with -- or convicted of some kind of financial crime relating to either insurance or taxes, but overall they are phenomenal doctors. put them in communities where they are needed. you have professors and teachers -- we have people with phd's and master's degrees that could be teaching at community colleges for nothing. week, 20 15 hours a hours a week, make them go teaching a community college for nothing. we have kids in these communities that really need an education and they do not have the money to get it. have people teach them.

there are a number of things you can do alternatively to punish people without putting them in prison. the cost of incarceration runs about $28,000 a year to house a federal inmate, but the reality is that the guy is making $150,000 a year and you stick him in prison for three years fish,e he caught too many it is a cost to you, the taxpayer, of about $600,000 for his stint in prison. ?hy not find -- fine him fine him 150,000. suspend him. i think it is absurd. 202 is the area code for all numbers and we have set aside our last number four

former inmates. we would like to hear from you. let's hear from our callers. , fromsioner kerik columbus, georgia, on our democrats line. i am calling because i feel like once the person is put into prison, and they do their time, they are convicted the rest of their life for their crimes. that is double jeopardy. they should be able to get a job and get back into society and be able to work and take care of their families. once they do their time, they are still a convicted felon the rest of their life and it is hard for them to get a job. what just out there like -- you are saying is true. host: thank you. let's get a response. there is -- i agree

totally with what you just said. here is the problem -- you never finished paying your debt to society. , thes american people press, congress, the people that make these laws, they will stand before an audience and talk about how a person has to be held accountable and pay their debt to society. at what point does that that --debt end? it does not. you pay that debt for the rest of your life. there is no time where you say you have now been made whole, you have done your prison time, your probation time, you might've gone beyond that and are now a model citizen, we will now expunge your record. we will give you back your life. we will give you back your constitutional and civil rights. that does not happen. there is no -- it does not happen.

the problem is you pay that debt forever, and that is not just. the punishment is supposed to fit the crime, and i am confident this is not what our founding fathers wanted when the constitution -- the personal and professional annihilation of someone that made a mistake, and i have to agree with her. bob, winchester, california. republican line. go ahead. is right on.guest i was a priest -- a prison minister and a priest for 15 --rs, and i hope set up the i cannot think of it anymore -- the freedom fund. about. what it is