the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 367 and the nays are 55. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

he house will be in order. he house will be in order. members will take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise?

mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rules. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 670, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4719, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for contributions for food inventory. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. veasey: i hereby give notice of my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees or h.r. 3230, the conference report on veterans access and accountability. >> the form of the motion is as follows. mr. guy yago of texas moves that the managers on the part of the house on the conference of the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the house amendment to the senate amendment to the bill h.r.

3230, an act to improve the access of veterans to medical services from the department of veterans affairs and for other purposes, to be instructed to recede from the disagreement of section 601 of the senate amendment relating to the authorization of major medical facility leases. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's notice will appear in the record. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 661 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for urther consideration of h.r. 5016. will the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, kindly take the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5016 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 152, line 15. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i like to strike the last word. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for ive minutes. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee is not in order. he committee will be in order.

i ask individuals, please take your conversations out of the aisles. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i thank my dear friend from new york, mr. serrano, for feeling five minutes. -- for yielding five minutes. i rise to speak on this bill but not to offer an amendment. i don't offer an amendment because to offer an amendment i would have to identify an offset within the body of this bill. this bill is deeply and harmfully underfunded. therefore, i will not seek to take from an object that to fund underfunded the elimination of the election assistance commission. i want at the outset say i

served on this subcommittee for 23 years. i know a little bit about the subject of this committee. not only that, i was the sponsor of the help america vote act with bob ney, my friend from ohio. that bill was overwhelmingly elected with over 350 bipartisan votes. unfortunately too frequently, bipartisanship eludes us in this body today. i voted against ryan-murray because i said at that point in time it did not provide sufficient resources to meet the responsibility this nation has to stay strong, stay free and to grow our economy and row jobs for our people. as i said, i was the sponsor of the help america vote act. within that bill we created the election assistance commission.

again, overwhelmingly supported by both sides of the aisle and by the united states senate and signed into law by president bush. the offices and programs covered under that program were ocused on trying to assist states and local governments to ensure the appropriate administration of elections. is there anything, i ask my colleagues, more important in a democracy than ensuring that elections are well run and that every voters' vote counts? i suggest to you there is not. the election assistance commission, which was established by the help america vote act, in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election

debacle. that law, as i said, over 350, to be specific, 357 members of this body voted for it. the appropriation bill on this floor today, however, would essentially eliminate that commission. now, i'm not surprised because frankly when the republicans became the majority in this house, it was at that point in time they started focusing on the elimination of the election assistance commission. as i said, designed to make our elections more efficient, . irer and more honest initially, my republican colleagues suggested that the duties of the election assistance commission would be done by the federal election commission which has a totally different responsibility, and that is the responsibility to make sure that the funding of elections is done appropriately and within the law.

i'm going to vote against this bill, not simply because of the zeroing out of the election assistance commission. ery frankly, i'm chagrined and disappointed that my republican colleagues too often are trying to undermine america's right to vote, undermine america's incentive to vote, undermine the facilitating of americans voting. i frankly don't understand that. the election assistance commission for the first time in history said for over 200 years states and localities had run federal elections. now, they were concurrent with state elections and local elections, but they ran our elections with no assistance from us. for president, vice president of the united states, united states senators and members of the house of representatives, we did not participate.

we contributed a substantial sum of money so that they could update and make more efficient the election systems that they had. but recently the republican party, mr. speaker, has refused to recommend appointments for the commission. and now they want to eliminate the commission. mr. speaker, in a country that looks at the right to vote and the exercising of franchise as central to our democracy, i would urge us to defeat this ill, to refund this critically important agency and do what we ought to do as americans and as members of this congress and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. frelinghuysen of new jersey. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following -- section. the amount otherwise provided by this act for national security council and homeland security council, salaries and expenses for the national security council is is hereby reduced by $4 -- council is hereby reduced by 4,400,000. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, this amendment would reduce the amendment available to the national security council staff by $4,200,000 or by approximately 1/3. the national security council staff is the president's staff. they serve solely to provide advice to the president on national security matters. they have no authority to

manage programs. they have no authority to allocate funds or otherwise decide spending levels. and they have no authority to determine or dictate congressional access to lassified information in sensitive military matters or operations. as the president's staff, it is appropriate that they are accountable to him just as our staff is only accountable to us. therefore, they are not subject to congressional questioning nor other forms of oversight. over the past few years, the size of the national security council staff has grown and it appears that they have moved beyond their presidential advisory role to involve themselves in decisions which are not in their purview. and over the last few months, we've had several instances in which the national security staff has mandated that the

department of defense and other agencies selectively withhold information from congressional oversight committees. while the president has constitutional authority as commander in chief to provide for the nation's defense, this congress was vested exclusively with the constitutional authority to fund that defense, a constitutional authority that is vested in our appropriations committee. mr. chairman, it is important that all appropriate oversight committees are not restricted from the information they need to do -- need to have to do their jobs, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment although i am not opposed to it. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate the recognition and would strongly emphasize that i join with my chairman

and colleague from new jersey in support of his amendment and so that there is clarity as to the purpose of his offering this amendment, i would reiterate two of his remarks. over the last few months we have had several instances in which the national security staff has mandated that the department of defense and other agencies selectively withhold information from congressional oversight committees and in one case specifically excluding the appropriations committee. as the chairman rightfully pointed out, the congress is vested exclusively with the constitutional authority to fund that defense and an authority in this instance rests with the appropriations committee. the committee has a clear direction in the fiscal year 2014 defense appropriations act, and the house passed a defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015 for the department to report on the

conduct of various programs as well as the expenditure of associated funding. mr. visclosky: it is funds not only expressly provided in the appropriations bill but department actions that may cause the reprogramming of funds provided by the congress. accurate, complete and timely reporting by the department of defense is essential for the committee to conduct its oversight responsibilities. it prepares the annual appropriations bills, it helps prepare the committee for negotiations with the senate and at present it would help them formulate recommendations on the recently submitted fiscal year 2015 budget amendment on the overseas contingency operation. . article 1 section 9 of the constitution states no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law and

regular statement and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. i urge the adoption of the gentleman's amendment which underscores the constitutional prerogative of the congress and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield to mr. crenshaw, but let me thank he and ranking member serrano for this opportunity to propose this amendment. happy to yield the remainder of my time to mr. crenshaw, the chairman. the chair: the gentleman from is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i thank the chairman for yielding and i thank the chairman for bringing this to the attention of the full house. i refer to the gentleman as chairman because i have the pleasure of serving on the defense subcommittee and he acts as chairman of that. as the chairman has said, the nuret council, the national

security adviser have gotten into a bad habit of bypassing the subcommittee when it comes to issues of national security. i can tell you firsthand, i have had situations where i asked for an update on some matters and hasn't been followed up on. i want to thank the chairman for his leadership and all things defense and i encourage my colleagues to follow his lead and urge that we adopt this amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: all time has been yielded back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: i have an amendment

at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. delauro. ms. delauro: i move we dispense with the reading. the chair: is there objection? pursuant to house rule 661, the gentlelady from connecticut and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield myself two minutes. my amendment would prohibit federal craggets going to entities incorporated in bermuda and came and islands, two nations who abuse tax havens. this body accepted similar provisions for the department of defense bill, housing and urban bill and energy bill, the latter passed on a roll call vote. as before, we should not be spending taxpayers' money on federal contracts for companies

that have renounced their american citizenship in favor of an island tax haven. let me quote from an article from saturday's "washington post" by a senior editor at large from fortune. and the title of the article is tax life dodging firms are sticking us with the bill. these companies, he writes, and i quote, don't hesitate take advantage of the great things that make america america. our deep financial markets, our democracy and rule of law, our military might, our intellectual and physical infrastructure, our national research programs, all the terrific places in our country that offers employees and their families to live. but inverters do hesitate totally when it is time to put up their financial support for our system and he is right and we shouldn't be gifting these

firms with federal contracts. 2/3 of the companies who have established subsidiaries and tax havens have registered one in bermuda or the came man islands. if a pirm is going to abuse tax loopholes, we should make sure we are doing business with companies that they are paying their fair share instead. we have taken strong, decisive and bipartisan actions in three appropriations bills. i urge all of my colleagues to act here as well and stand by for american businesses who are meeting their responsibility to our nation. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the lady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. serrano: i rise to claim time in opposition, even though i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection,

the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: this is one of these issues that gets you angry. both sides believe that people should play by the rules and what you have is people not playing by the rules. people in my district, people in mr. crenshaw's district have to pay their taxes and pay their taxes where they live, they don't have the option of doing these kinds of things. so, for me, it is not only a legislative issue, it's a personal issue, the fact that these folks continue to get away with this kind of a situation. and so, this is an issue that ms. delauro has been working on for years and that's why we have to thank her for this. and i would like to take this opportunity to yield some more time to her. ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. doggett: thank you for your good work on this amendment, this will be the third bill that we have amended on it. seldom has a day gone by recently without a headline about some american company that is running for the border to avoid its tax bill. indeed today's "new york times" has patriot flees homeland, drug firms make haste to elude tax and an excellent article in the "washington post" entitled positively un-american tax dodgers and gives new meaning to the term sunshine patriot when some corporation renounces its citizenship and claims it's a citizen of the cayman islands or bermuda. the willingness of corporations to renounce their citizenship

and leave america behind at least in name only, at least when the tax bill is do, but not when the desire for a government contract has been there has been cognized where senator wyden will consider legislation on the best approach to end this. and we need to stop inversions that are truly per versions of the tax code. as mr. sloan writes, inverters are deserters. members can respond by denying them government contracts. i would like to do more, but i believe this legislation adopted now in these other appropriations acts, repeating it for every one of them will do a great deal to send a message about those who shirk their responsibilities to america at the same time they ask other taxpayers to use their tax money to finance government contracts.

the amendment says if you renounce your citizenship and go abroad to come -- to avoid ask themxes, and don't -- additional 15 seconds. don't ask them those who are proud to be american businesses and paying their fair share to pay for you to get a government contract. don't ask them to pay and put their tax dollars to pay for your success. we believe that this approach provides protection to the treasury and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady will control the

remaining time. ms. delauro: how much time is remaining? the chair: 2 1/4 minutes. ms. delauro: as i mentioned in the article this past weekend -- and i want to read this quote, because i think it is putting this whole issue into perspective. how much money are we talking about inverters sucking out of the u.s. treasury? of thes no number number losses. congress' joint committee on taxation projects that failing to limit corporations from evading their responsibility like this will cost the treasury $19.5 billion much,0 years and possibly much more. at a time when we struggle here

day by day to look for the resources to expand unemployment benefits to pass the highway trust fund, to increase minimum wage, to increase the dollars for biomedical research, for looking for funds for education in this nation for our children, e have corporations that are siphonning $19.5 billion. not only do they do that, they take with them and we give to them billions in federal contracts. no more should we do it. i and others long fought for it and passed it through the appropriations process a ban on u.s. companies that are in a lower tax jurisdiction and then

they claim that their headquarters is there despite still being a u.s. company. we can send another strong statement to these companies today as we have already done on defense, on energy and water, on transportation-hud, by coming together and passing this amendment and i urge all of my colleagues to support it. tell them that they are not allowed to give up their american citizenship and yet to claim it for billions in federal contracts. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. does the gentlelady yield the remainder of her time? of your own time? three minutes remaining. ms. delauro: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady

eserves. the gentlelady has the only time. ms. delauro: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. baca: i have an amendment at the desk -- mr. bachus: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from alabama and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: this is a straight-forward amendment which i'm joined with my colleague,

representative sewell. the chief judge of the northern district of alabama and the u.s. marshal who was apointed under the previous administration but serves under this administration have designated this statute as a security risk and we are more concerned over the opinions of the senior officials in that building than we are at the g.s.a. in not having that statute loathed where it poses a security risk to the employees and visitors to that courthouse. so accordingly, i ask support for this important amendment and yield the balance of my time to -- mr. crenshaw: would the gentleman yield? we are happy to accept your amendment. mr. bachus: thank you. and i yield the balance of my time to congresswoman sewell.

ms. sewell: i thank the gentleman from alabama for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of my colleague's amendment to prohibit funding in the underlying bill being used to re-install the red mountain sculpture on the courthouse in birmingham, alabama. despite the security concerns shared by the united states marshal and the chief justice, the g.s.a. has planned to re-install the sculpture. both the chief justice and the u.s. marshal believe the sculpture is nonessential and will pose a security risk if we install. the chief justice noted in correspondence to g.s.a. that the location of the statue will be 10 to 12 feet from the public entrance door which is completely made of glass and the monday you meant would cre -- monument would create a funnel

and cause a security risk. federal law clearly states that the united states marshal have the final authority regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch of the federal government. the administrative office of courts has agreed with the chief justice and the u.s. marshal that the final authority over these matters should lie with the u.s. marshal. if the marshal and the chief justice believe that putting the sculpture back, then g.s.a. should follow the law and not put the monument back up. g.s.a. has plans to re-install the statue. while i'm a steadfast supporter of the art, i believe that the safety of our court and the citizens must come first. this amendment simply reinforces that g.s.a. must follow the law by prohibiting the re-installation of the sculpture in the federal court house. i thank my friend from alabama

for introducing this bipartisan amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in support of it. thank you, mr. speaker. yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: mr. speaker, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: and i yield to the gentleman from new york for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, ranking member jose serrano. mr. chairman, i'm here because on march 14, 2013, in my upstate new york district a school librarian named laurie and a 10-year-old child were

attacked in a mall parking lot. the attacker was facing federal child pornography charges and was out on bail and ordered to wear an electronic monitoring brace let. he disabled the brace let, left his home, stabbed her and sexually assaulted the young girl. mr. maffei: it had been revealed that the attacker had been removing the g.p.s. brace let. it sent out tamper alerts every time he disabled the device but the probation office responsible for monitoring this defendant before his trial failed to respond to 46 total tamper alerts. on the day of the attack, he again disabled his brace let and the office again ignored the alert. if they had investigated any of these 46 tamper alerts maybe this tragedy could have been a voided. this amendment funds the organization tasked with overseeing the system of

federal probation offices all over this country. after this case, i wrote to the administrative office of the united states courts asking them to investigate this gross negligence and in their response was, quote, nothing can excuse the deficiencies in the supervisions of this case but it also said, reduced resources due to the sequester is harming the efforts to keep it from happening again, end quote. mr. chairman, we have addressed the sequester for now but funding issues remain. the administrative offices have had to cut more than in previous years. we need to prevent cases like this from happening again. and to be clear, this has happened again around the country, and i ask the committee take note of the serious problem and ensure that the administrative office gets the funding it needs to enact real reform. i want to thank the ranking member's willingness to work with me, chairman crenshaw and your staff and the minority staff, your willingness to work

with me on this. tragedies do happen, but this one could have, should have been avoided. and i'm dedicated to have congress do anything in our power to make sure it never happens again in central new york or anywhere in this great country and i yield back. mr. serrano: i thank the gentleman. bringing the salaries and funds of the district courts up to an appropriate level. in part, as he mentioned, to address a tragic incident that took place in his district. and it highlights the problems the judiciary suffered under sequestration with the lower funding levels. we will work with the gentleman, the majority and with the judiciary as we do every year to ensure that we can meet their funding needs and address the gentleman's concerns. and i thank you. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. serrano: yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: i'd like to engage the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho, in a colloquy. mr. yoho: mr. chairman, i rise to engage chairman crenshaw in a colloquy. mr. chairman, in 2010 this body passed the hiring incentive to restore employment act, the hire act. included in that measure was the foreign account tax compliance act, or fatca. it requires u.s. citizens living abroad to prepare tax returns that include both non-u.s. income and non-u.s. financial accounts. additionally, fatca requires financial institutions in other countries to report on assets held by american clients to the i.r.s. if those institutions do not supply that information, they'd be subject to a 30% withholding tax. in a recent report, nearly 77,000 institutions have agreed to hand over that information to the i.r.s. the unintended consequences of this law are affecting over seven million americans living

overseas. due to the additional reporting burden, many institutions are simply denying access to our citizens. simply put, added regulations from the federal government are putting our citizens at a competitive disadvantage around the world, and foreign firms now view our citizens as too much of a hassell and a liability to -- hassell and a liability to -- hastle and a liability to hire. and one is to move from a citizens-based tax or repeal fatca. the u.s. citizens who live and work abroad are our nation's biggest spokesmen for america and our way of life and what america stands for. they represent our countries in areas of the world that typically see americans in a skewed light. we as those in government should give them every opportunity to succeed throughout the world. however, we have so many stories like the american living in australia where her husband is an australian citizen and they share a mutual

bank account but they have to comply with i.r.s. rules and she has no income. or the gentleman from thailand who retired and worked for a u.s. company for the last 15 years and he has to abide by u.s. tax laws even though he's been over there and he resides outside of the u.s. and what fidelity mutual told him is, we can no longer accept your money and invest because you live outside of the u.s. but you're a u.s. citizen. and mr. chairman, this is unacceptable. we in government should do everything possible to bring certainty to our citizens regardless of where they live. and as a sign of a true great nation is the ability for the nation's citizens to travel and work wherever they choose in the world without being disadvantaged by their own government. and with that i look forward to working with my colleague from florida and yield back to him for any comments he might have. thank you, sir. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman. as you point out, this is an extensive regulation that's going to have a profound and far-reaching impact on our

economy. i believe these regulations, as you point out, are fraught with unintended consequences. as you point out, the regulation is creating headaches for many americans who must report their foreign financial activities on their u.s. tax reform so they spend countless hours to file their tax forms to comply. mr. speaker, we don't need more burdensome regulations. we need some pro-growth tax reform, make it easier for americans, whether living at file.r living abroad to this is overkill. i look forward to working with the gentleman to address these unintended consequences. thank you. mr. yoho: i yield back.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. schakowsky of illinois. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following -- section. none of the funds made available in this act may be used to enter into a contract with any person whose disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition listed in section 2313-c-1 of title 41 united states code in the federal awardee performance and integrity information system include the term fair labor standards act. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentlelady from illinois and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from illinois. ms. schakowsky: thank you, mr. chairman. all of us know that hardworking men and women in all of our

districts are having a rough time these days. many are paid low wages or wages that are not enough to meet their family's basic needs. those problems are made even worse when workers are the victims of wage theft. billions of dollars are actually stolen from workers through wage theft, and wage theft occurs when workers are forced to work off the clock, denied earned overtime pay or paid less than the minimum wage. workers can lose pay because of illegal paycheck deductions, be denied their final paychecks or not be paid at all. interfaith worker justice, based in chicago, has been working to stop wage theft for years. in 2008, its executive director wrote a book called "wage theft in america: why millions of working americans are not getting paid and what we can do about it." my amendment is one step we can take to do something about it. my amendment is simple.

the idea is the same idea that has been offered on the house floor by my friend and colleague, representative keith ellison, and is supported by the congressional progressive caucus. it says that federal contractors have a duty to pay their workers their legally earned wages and that corporations that don't pay their workers their legally earned wages shouldn't benefit from federal contracts. similar language has successfully been added to the energy and water and department of defense appropriations bills. wage theft has been documented. one study of workers in chicago, los angeles and new york city found that 26% were paid below legal minimum wage levels, 76% were denied earned overtime and 70% were not paid for work outside of their regular shift. the north carolina justice center found that workers in that state lost $33 million in pay because of wage theft over the course of five years. the economic policy institute

found that, quote, in total the average low-wage worker loses a stunning $2,634 per year in unpaid wages, representing 15% of their income. this is a problem in many sectors, and that includes federal contractors. a report by the senate health, education and pension committee revealed that 32% of the largest department of penalties were levied against federal contractors. and the law project found that 21% of federal contract workers were not paid overtime, and 11% had been forced to work off the clock. federal contract employees deserve to receive the dollars they have earned, the dollars that they need, the dollars they would spend in their communities and the dollars that taxpayers awarded the contractors for those wages. all workers should be safe from wage theft, but my amendment is much more modest.

it just says that a contract under this f.y. 2015 appropriations bill can't be awarded to a corporation found to be in violation of wage requirements under the fair labor standards act. it says that corporations that cheat their employees out of hard-earned wages are not deserving of taxpayer-funded federal contracts. it sends a clear message, obey the law, pay the workers what they earned or we won't give you a taxpayer fnged federal contract. -- taxpayer-financed federal contract. this is important for businesses competing for federal contracts but won't engage in wage theft to get a competitive edge. do we really want to tell corporations that they can violate the law and steal wages from their workers and still get a federal contract, or do we want to take a stand by saying only companies that pay by the wage rules we've enacted will be eligible? i hope we can agree that breaking the law and order to

underpaid workers is not acceptable, certainly should not be rewarded and certainly not with taxpayer dollars. i urge my colleagues, help the workers who work for us. support the congressional progressive caucus' amendment, and i reserve whatever balance i have. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does anyone wish to claim time in opposition? the gentlelady is recognized for 45 seconds. ms. schakowsky: i urge a yes vote on the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. meehan of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the member from pennsylvania and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. meehan: i offer an amendment to the financial services appropriation bill and -- i would like to commend chairman crenshaw to stopping the culture of spending and continuing the culture of savings that we have seen from his subcommittee chairmanship. given our country's current fiscal situation, we need to be mindful of limited resources and do more with less. one of the most basic concepts in budgeting is balancing wants versus needs. the need is something that you have to have, something you can't do without. a want is something that you would like to have.

good example calcium. it is necessary for survival, but ice cream, on the other hand is a want. everyone needs calcium but people would do just fine without ice cream. this congress understands the difference between wants and needs. my amendment prohibits any funds from this bill being spent by the government services agency towards the renovation of the bowling alley in the white house eisenhower office building. our nation's $17 trillion in debt, upgrading the president's private bowling aly shouldn't be a priority. on it may suit the wants of the commander in chief but i speak for the taxpayers of the 7th congressional district that that is certainly not a need.

when the administration came forward with this proposal, they rolled a gutter ball. and hard-working americans expect and deserve better. these are difficult times in our country. this is no time for business as usual. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. serrano: i would like to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: this has very little to do with a bowling alley or not the picture of president nixon bowling at the white house. by is about this desire republicans and by the tea party segment of republicans in some cases, to make barack obama seem . ke an illegitimate president his presidency has been questioned on and on.

questions about his birth place and what he said his religion was and questions about whether he was old enough to be president. there has been questions about everything. now these petty attacks continue. this is a nonissue. this is a nonstarter. first of all, this was about fixing up a bowling alley that as been there forever. i don't think the people really spend a lot of time concerned about the fact that all presidents, and i mean all presidents, are not allowed to pick up and go to the local place to have a beer or have -- bowl a game of bowling or whatever. and so this is not an issue that we should be dealing with. but what's important about it is that g.s.a. furthermore has canceled the project. the federal contract was pulled

on july 9. so i'm sure that the other side knows that this no longer is an issue, but it continues to be something that sounds good. i'm sure people will be writing about it tonight that the bowling alley was going to be built at the white house. no. this was an existing one that was going to be refurbished. that idea has been pulled back and just continues to be more and more and more of this petty attack on a president. and i think it's more not so much as i believe that he was legitimated president, which caused a lot of pain for a lot of people, but the fact that he was re-elected, that has turned people to a point that they will come up with anything. by tonight, we may even see even the plumbing at the white house attacked as we did a couple of years ago. and i remarked there hadn't been any plumbers at the white house

since the nixon administration and that is true. we have leaks and we have a white house that needs fixing and this congress spends time a waste of time on these kinds of issues. i would just hope that the gentleman would pull his amendment. if he doesn't, i would hope we defeat the amendment because it's silly and not necessary at all and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. meehan: i suspect it's only silly if you are people who don't want to care about the important ex pen tidurs of the taxpayers of the united states of america. this isn't some trivial issue. this is a question of priorities at a time when every family is struggling. and the justification here in time" magazine that this needs renovations, would you believe it.

according to first-person testimony, this is the staffers and the president, there is no electric scoreboard down there, so you have to score by hand. and that is terrible when you are focused on bowling like i am or maybe have other people focus on other things. this is a serious issues in terms of the missed priority of spengeding federal dollars. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the isle to assert the appropriate priorities in terms of our spending and i urge a yes vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: just in closing, it is silly and i'm not suggesting the gentleman is silly. we spend large amounts on the military that we never attack. we send money overseas in misguided military situations

and we don't complain about that. but it makes good headlines to say that today we stopped the bowling alley from being built at the white house. refurbish was the question in hand and it has been pulled back since july 9. there is no plan whatsoever to do anything with the existing old bowling alley at the white house. so this is not a gutter ball. this is not a strike for anyone. this is just more of the silliness that we will see for the next 24 hours. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from new york is

recognized. mr. serrano: i would like to have a roll call vote on this amendment. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> seek recognition? . >> mr. grayson: i have an amendment at the desk, grayson number 3. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract with any offer or any of its principals if the offerer certifies that the offerer or any of its principals, one, within a three-year period preceding this offer has been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to

obtain or performing a federal, state or local contract -- mr. grayson: i ask unanimous consent -- the chair: any objections to dispensing with the reading of the amendment? seeing none, pursuant to the house resolution 661, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: this amendment is identical to other amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every appropriations bill that has been considered under an open rule and similar to the amendment i offered last week, which was passed by voice vote. it expands parties prohibiting from contracting due to serious misconduct. my hope is this amendment will be passed by this house. i reserve the balance of my time. i will yield.

mr. crenshaw: pleased to accept the amendment. mr. grayson: thank you very much. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: i would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i thank the gentleman and i thank his offer to engage in a colloquy. money market funds are an important tool used by a variety of different organizations such as businesses, state and local governments, school districts, pension funds, nonprofits and more. in fact, it estimated between 1985 and 2008, people and organizations that invested in

money market funds have earned $450 billion more than they otherwise would have earned. since the financial crisis there has been significant discussion about regulating the industry further. in 2010, the securities and exchange commission put in place new rules to prevent future runs by imposing additional disclosures. even after these changes, the federal reserve through the stability oversight council has you supered the jurisdiction of the s.e.c. and proposed additional regulations on money markets. while they have backed off with their proposal, the s.e.c. is soon to vote on a rule on certain funds. i share many of the concerns that how a floating net asset value would adversely impact money market funds and the people and organizations that rely on them. in fact, it is worth noting of

the 1,428 comments on the rule, 98% were against the floating net asset value. before regulators impose any additional changes, they must be certain that the cost and benefits have been weighed and ensuring that the tax changes that will need to be considered will be reviewed by the public in an open and transparent manner before moving forward. we should not eliminate money markets to grow and thrive. in closing, i would like to thank the committee for positive report language with respect to money market funds and thank the chairman for his consideration of this important matter. mr. crenshaw: i appreciate the gentleman giving attention to this issue. we have included money market language within the bill. we are concerned about the issue and will work with you. mr. rothfus: i thank the gentleman and look forward to

working with him on this important issue. and i yield back. mr. crenshaw: i yield back. the chair: time's yielded back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sherman of california, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement, administer or enforce accounting standard rules, regulations or requirements in fasb project, accounting standards topic 842. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution 661, the gentleman from california, and a member opposed emof each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. sherman: so much of what we do on this floor is partisan going over the same old issues. i bring to you an amendment that

i co-wrote with the chamber of commerce and which deals with an issue that has not yet been discussed on this floor. the financial accounting standards board is funded by the s.e.c. through a convoluted process to claim that they are not a government agency but funded through a mandatory tax and if you don't follow their prescriptions, you can, indeed face criminal as well as civil penalties. if it's not broke, don't fix it. for 100 years, we have had good rules on how to account for leases. the tenant pays rent. the owner of the building owns the building. and the financial statements disclose in the footnotes all of the details any financial analyst would want to see. since its not broke, the board decided to fix it.

they want to list on every balance sheet in america the future amount that will be paid in all lease payments as a liability. the effect of that is to increase the liability shown on the balance sheets of american business by $2 trillion. that's right. this is a $2 trillion issue that has not yet been discussed on this floor. . there's been some outreach, taken some testimony. the standards of the accounting world, they've listened. but by the standards of democracy that we're familiar with, trust me, far more is done before you permit a single three-story apartment building. almost 70 members of congress have urged the financial accounting standards board to stop. they keep going. they want to act in concert with the european international accounting standards board and

that board is beholden to the parliament in brussels. that's right. those who in effect enact american law are not listening to congress, they're listening to the only parliament in the world held in lower esteem than congress. what will be the effect on our economy? well, this will add $2 trillion to the balance sheet -- like thes of american businesses -- liabilities of american businesses. it will put a tremendous disincentive on businesses to sign long-term leases. if your tenant won't sign a long-term lease, you can't fund a new building project, a new shopping center, a new industrial park. so that's why an economic study funded by the american association of realtors, the economic round table, the business owners and managers association and others, says that the best case scenario is that this will destroy 190,000 american jobs. and reduce our g.d.p. by almost

$28 billion a year. the worst case scenario is over three million jobs and nearly half a trillion dollars decline in our g.d.p. it is time for us to tell the financial accounting standards board not to go down this road in an effort to fix something that isn't broken. it is time also to focus on an additional disadvantage of this accountinging proposal. and that is -- accounting proposal. and that is it will cause tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of businesses in this country to be in violation of their loan covenants which means that they will have to immediately pay off their liabilities or renegotiate with their bankers who will insist upon higher personal guarantees, higher interest rates, etc. thousands and thousands of long-term bondses that have been sold in the public market -- bonds that have been sold in the public market will be held

to be in violation of their loan kev nantz and will become -- covenants and will become immediately due. not because the businesses were wrong, but because the accounting standards changed. w, it is -- i have often thought that accounting principles ought to be written by the financial accounting standards board and not by congress. i am clinging to that belief. as i see this disaster unfold in the preliminary -- in the discussions of the financial accounting standards board, it is harder and harder to cling to that belief. but i still retain hope that the accounting standards board will change direction and will not adopt this new policy which solves no problem and which will add $2 trillion to the liabilities of american business and cost us hundreds and hundreds of thousands of

jobs. but because i'm hopeful that they will change course, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment. the chair: without objection, he amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amend at the dess -- an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. fleming of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from louisiana, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to stop the implementation of treasury guidance that is in direct conflict with the federal anti-money laundering statutes. on february 14, 2014, the

department of the treasury financial crimes enforcement network issued compliance guidance for, quote, bank secrecy act, b.s.a., expectations for financial institutions seeking to provide services to marijuana-related businesses, end quote. i'm concerned the treasury forgot one detail. the bank seekry is he act and federal anti--- seeksy act and federal anti-money -- secrecy act and federal anti-money laundering acts are clear that they may not engage in marijuana-related transactions. despite trending state laws, federal law remains unchanged. the controlled substances act prohibits the manufacture, possession and distribution of marijuana. anything but compliance with this, the law of the land, will trigger criminal dane money laundering penalty -- criminal anti-money laundering penalties for perpetrators.

instead of issues guidance to reinforce federal pro prohibitions, the memo offers banks ways to report suspicious activities as required under federal law. while blatantly ignoring the fact that the banks are not allowed to participate in any marijuana transactions without xceptions. that means instead of fornsing the law there's an alert sent out. the very act of depositting drug money runs you a to -- afoul of federal law. it's important to note that the department of justice also issued a memo in 2014. quote, guidance regarding marijuana-related financial crimes, end quote. this separate memo reinforces federal law and outlines possible prosecution and criminal offense for, quote, transactions involving proceeds generated by marijuana-related conduct, end quote. my amendment would stop the department of treasury from implementing their february,

2014, guidance which is confusing and is actually creating problems throughout the industry and it's the government again, it's the administration not enforcing its own laws. this is not short of money laundering, all the while encouraging banks, credit unions and other financial institutions to encourage, engage in, rather, illegal and criminal activities. and with that i would like to yield some time to my good friend from florida. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me see if i've got this straight. right now manufacturing, distributing or dispensing marijuana, that's still illegal under federal law, right? mr. fleming: that is correct. >> and the bank secrecy act prohibits banks from laundering the proceeds of illegal activities, right? but in spite of that, the controlled substance act, despite bank secrecy act, treasury's given banks guidance on how to facilitate the sale of marijuana. mr. crenshaw: that seems wrong, absolutely wrong. this amendment corrects that

wrong. so i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. mr. fleming: i would just -- if -- do i have time left, mr. chairman? how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman is still recognized. mr. fleming: thank you. i would just say in closing that -- or i'd like to reserve, unless there's -- is there anyone else speaking? ok, i'd like to reserve the remainder of my time then. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> there's a couple of other speakers so i'll be very brief. this really has very little to do with the substance that we're talking about or that appears to be marijuana. mr. serrano: it's about the fact that whether we like it or not, there are states that have already legalized either recreational use, in two cases, or medical use in 22 states. d those situations require

banking decisions and banking abilities. jack lew, secretary of the treasury, said in our hearing and i quote, without any guidance there would be a proliferation of cash-only businesses and that would make it impossible to see when there are actions going on that violate both federal and state law. so an attack on the use of marijuana may be misleading here because what we're doing is really ignoring the banking aspect of this and the fact that there has to be some regulations and some issues put in place to do the right thing and to uphold the law, the banking laws and other laws. with that i would like to yield to mr. perlmutter. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd say to my friend, dr. fleming, and to the chairman of the committee, that the guidance has already been implemented. the guidance from the justice department, the guidance from the treasury department to

banks and to the regulators how to report activity around a marijuana business. there are now 22 states that allow for medical marijuana, there are two states that have legalized it for all adult purposes. we're at 24 states and by the end of this year we will be at about 30 states. and what is happening is because banks may not be ollowing -- they're doing what mr. fleming would like -- dr. fleming would like to see, they're operating just in cash, which creates its own potential for crime. robbery, assault and battery, you cannot track the money, there's skimming and tax evasion. so the guidance by the justice department, the guidance by the treasury department is to bring this out into the open and i would offer for the record

yesterday's article in "u.s.a. today" concerning the security issues dealing with all-cash accounts. and the treasury officials there say, our goal is to promote financial transparency and make sure law enforcement receives the reporting from financial institutions that it needs to police this activity. so i would urge a big no vote on this amendment. it is going backwards. and i would yield back to the ranking member, mr. serrano, to have the gentleman from california speak. mr. serrano: yes, thank you. i yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. sherman: so many have spoken on this floor in favor of states' rights. a majority of americans live in states in which medical marijuana is legal. and yet we have this bizarre circumstance where these have to be all-cash businesses. the result, as the gentleman from colorado points out, is

tax evasion or the potential for tax evasion, and also an invitation to crime. vie -- violent street crime as people figure out how they can invade with guns a store that is licensed by my state or his tate and try to steal huge quantities of cash. it is absolutely absurd to tell people that they cannot use medical marijuana when they're in physical pain and they live in a state where that is allowed and it is even more absurd to have millions of dollars of cash there for the possible criminal taking because we have businesses that are actually operating, that are outside the banking system. i yield back to the gentleman from new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: how much time do i have? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes. mr. fleming: ok.

i thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, it is an absolute fact that marijuana, the use of marijuana, the sale of marijuana, is against federal law. you may want to change that law, but that is the law. also, our banking system, even those that are state banks, state charter banks, fall under a federal banking system. you talk about money laundering. well, what about other drugs? what about heroin? what about methamphetamines? should we also have exemptions and carveouts for those as well? why even have a system that detects money launder and actually enforces that if we're -- laundering and actually enforces that if we're going to have exemmingtses and carveouts for -- exemptions and carveouts for that as well? with regard to medical marijuana, that is still very controversial. the reason why marijuana is still a scheduled one drug, illegal, is because there's not

a known or accepted, by authorities, that marijuana has an acceptable medical use. now, yes, extracts of marijuana, even synthetic t.h.c., is a scheduled three, and that can be prescribed and monitored by a physician. not a problem with that and the money can go into any banking system. so if there are beneficial parts of the marijuana plant, we can extract that, we can create medication from it, whether it's liquid or tablet, inject -- injection or whatever, and that will certainly be delivered, prescribed by physicians. anyway, i urge a yes vote on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment

is not agreed to. mr. fleming: i would like a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment 177 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay a performance award under title 5 united states code to any employee of the internal revenue service. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 661, the gentleman from arizona, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i rise today to offer one final amendment to the financial services and general services administration act. i'm grateful to chairman crenshaw and ranking member serrano for working with me on my amendments to this bill. they have been cooperative. i would like to thank the staff of the financial services subcommittee and they have been courteous and cooperative with my staff. my final amendment of the bill seeks to effectuate a policy of accountability in government. historically, the i.r.s. has never been liked by the american people. the agency has taken our hard-earned wages and enforces the internal revenue code. the power of this agency is similar to the power of the

department of defense. and most americans quietly trusted them. they trusted that the agency was enforcing the law with fairness d impartial atlanta and that trust has not only been questioned but destroyed. this year, house republicans have gone above and beyond to hold this president and lawless administration accountable and this is another opportunity to act. my final amendment to the bill follows in support of another amendment that i filed a few weeks ago. this amendment would prohibit bonuses or perform appears awards to be paid to senior executive employees at the i.r.s. with great power comes great responsibility. the i.r.s. is responsible for administering tax laws fairly and justly. they have failed at that responsibility and now must be held accountable. senior management should never have let this happen. they should not be given

performance awards. giving out bonuses is ludicrous and amounts to a slap in the face to the american people. i would like to note i appreciate the committee's inclusion of a provision section 112 in the bill. that section prescribes that before a bonus may be awarded to an i.r.s. employee, assessment of the employee's conduct must be performed and taken into account. as a dual elected member of congress representing hundreds of thousands of people i cannot in good conscience allow any bonuses to be awarded. i will seek to ensure this policy is law each and every fiscal year. it is my hope this amendment will be signed into law and no bonuses will be awarded in the next fiscal year. none should have been given last year but the commissioner

decided to give out bonuses. my hope is that this amendment will incentivize one of the senior executives to come forth -- lois es of li lerner's missing emails. the i.r.s. need to rebuild the. this agency has shown contempt to the american taxpayer. when the house voted on the house resolution 565 to demand attorney general eric holder appoint a special counsel, 26 democrats voted to support that measure. as i mentioned with my last i.r.s. amendment, if you disapprove of them leaking information about president's political opponents, then support my amendment. if you disapprove of the i.r.s. targeting conservative groups. f you support this, support my

amendment. if you approve of this agency lying to the american people, support my amendment. if you disapprove i.r.s. senior executives receiving bonuses, support my amendment. i thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued work on the committee and with that, i reserve. mr. crenshaw: would the gentleman yield? the gentleman has made a couple of interesting points that i think bear emphasis. some of the actions of the i.r.s. have been outrageous and have talked about that from time to time. this year, $63 million in bonuses were paid to i.r.s. employees. interesting they were paid by the new commissioner when the prior commissioner had decided that it was not appropriate to pay those bonuses and then the new commissioner testified before our subcommittee how he was outraged that he didn't have

enough money to answer more than 61% of his phone calls and i said what's outrageous to me is that you don't have enough money to answer the phone call, which is the first thing you ought to do, yet you paid $63 million in bonuses and some of the people who were paid were delinquent on their taxes. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. crenshaw: i urge adoption of the amendment. mr. serrano: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: mr. speaker, i get tired of saying this, but it has to be said, i realize the other side's desire is to bring the i.r.s. down to nothing. it's a constitutional question. we have the power to collect taxes. one would argue that we must have a department that collects taxes. they may not always be the

department, the agency we want them to be. both sides where one believes it or not was outraged that maybe something wrong might have been done. to suggest and paint with a broad brush the whole i.r.s. and say everyone there at the senior level is not worthy of a bonus or not worthy of our respect is really to do a disservice to public service employees. these folks do a job. they do a job on a daily basis. are there problems with the i.r.s.? flsl always been problems with the i.r.s. has it been an agency that is loved by the american public? no. because we as americans would love somehow to do everything we need to do but have taxes that are either very low or nonexistent. we would all rather pay less

taxes. but we spend time knocking and knocking. if you measure the time that we have spent on this bill so far and you measure how much of that time has been allocated to the i.r.s. and to bringing it down, not to helping it in any way, not to coming up with any solutions, the whole argument has been they have done something wrong, we are going to punish them. we are not talking about children or a foreign government that attacked us, we are talking about an agency that might not have done everything the way we want them to do it and therefore we have to use our resources, our power and our legislative ability to make them do a better job, to help them along the way, not to destroy them. here we're saying if you have executives at the higher level that are doing a good job, you can't help them in any way. you have to ignore that.

w we talk about morale and morale with our staff and morale with our membership. why do we have so many members who are retiring? if you asked them, a lot of them retiring because we don't get along the way we used to or maybe we spend so much time on wasteful issues. we can't paint with a brush the whole i.r.s. we have to find a way to help to make them a better agency, yes, to use tough love, absolutely. i will be the first one to agree to that and join the majority. but this word punishing of a worthless institution, corrupt institution, of an institution that does not follow the law. that is not true, not fair and not correct. that is why this amendment is misguided and do just the them e of what you want

to do. you bring down the support of those who could help us do a better job at the i.r.s. and so i hope that we would get mr. gosar to withdraw his amendment. but his facial expression told e i'm crazing in asking that question. you don't have to agree that i'm crazy. we should defeat this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. heck of washington. none of the funds made available in this act may be used with respect to the states of alabama, alaska, arizona, california, colorado, connecticut, delaware, florida, hawaii, illinois, iowa, kentucky, maine, maryland, massachusetts, michigan, minnesota, mississippi, montana, nevada, new hampshire, new jersey, new mexico, new york, north carolina, rhode island, south carolina, tennessee, utah,

vice president or washington or the district of columbia to prohibit or penalize from providing an entity because it is a manufacturer, producer or person that participates in any business or organized activity that involves handling marijuana or marijuana product and engages in such activity pursuant to a law established by a state or unit of local government. mr. crenshaw: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from washington, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. r. heck: thank you, mr. chair. i offer this bipartisan amendment to carry forth an important issue of public safety to provide legally-constituted marijuana businesses, access to

banking services to do otherwise is to render an all-cash sector of the economy, which is fraught with peril. if you supported the rohrabacher amendment to the commerce, justice and science appropriation, which passed clearly, then you will support this as well. it brings forth the terms and conditions of the department of justice and financial crimes enforcement network. yesterday morning on the very front page of "u.s.a. today," was an article of setting forth the dangers of all-cash businesses in states that have approved legally-operated marijuana businesses. it is in the words of the attorney general, you don't want huge amounts of cash. they want to be able to use the banking system and it is a public safety component. substantial amounts of cash just lying around with no place to be appropriately deposited.

there is something that worries me just from a law enforcement perspective. if you support public safety, if you supported the rohrabacher amendment to the commerce, justice and science bill, you will support this amendment as well. in the interest of public safety, you will do this. because in the words of the department of justice, the two most important terms and conditions, keep marijuana out of the hands of children and keep cash out of the hands of gangs and cartels. o -- i urge you in the strongest terms to support this amendment, bipartisan amendment as was adopted earlier on the commerce, justice and science appropriations bill. and i reserve myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona -- florida seek recognition?

mr. crenshaw: i make a point of order against the amendment. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if the -- if changing existing law. and this amendment requires a new determination and therefore i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: mr. chairman, i would just urge the chair in ruling that this does not change the law in one -- in any respect. it respects the guidance that has been promulgated by the justice department and the treasury department and does not make a change and is not outside of the rules and i would say to my friend from florida that his point of order is incorrect and would ask the

chair to rule that the gentleman's amendment is in order. the chair: the chair's prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes language -- language requiring a new determination as to the reason a financial institution provides financial services to an entity. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? will the gentleman specify his amendment? >> amendment 68.

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. walberg of michigan. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used in contra invention of chapter 29, 31 or 33 of title 44, united states code. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment which builds off the good work accomplished by chairman crenshaw and ranking member serrano in the underlying bill. at a recent oversight and government reform committee hearing, we had the opportunity to hear testimony from david ferraro, the archivist of the united states, and head of the national archives and records administration, which oversees the federal records act. in his testimony before congress, he gave an account of

how the i.r.s. failed to notify him about the unauthorized disposal of lowest -- lois lerner's hard drive. a hard drive which contained key emails and information about her actions in the targeting of conservative groups. in fact, during my questioning of mr. ferraro, he stated that the i.r.s., and i quote, did not follow the law. it's clear the i.r.s. has not made its priority to -- made it a priority to comply with the intent of the law. whether in the form of intimidating taxpayers, ignoring congressional requests for documents, or ignoring requirements to document it's -- to document valuable records that are in the public interest. my amendment would address one of these failures and prohibit any funds in this bill to be used by the i.r.s. to act in

contravention of the federal records act. it is a commonsense check on the i.r.s.'s recent behavior and i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve. i would yield. mr. crenshaw: i just want you to know that in the bill we have provisions that a-- a provision that applies to the i.r.s. this is a little bit broader but i think it's a good amendment so i encourage folks to support it. thank you. mr. walberg: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: thank you, mr. speaker. the gentleman is primarily concerned with records management at the i.r.s. should not surprise us. the i.r.s. again. however, this bill already contains a provision preventing the use of funds by the i.r.s. to violate these very same sections of the code.

in order, the bill that we are -- in other words, the bill that we are debating today, the full bill, already accomplish what is the gentleman seeks to do. every agency is already required to follow federal records management law, so this amendment seems particularly unnecessary. i realize members on the other side want to continue to issue press releases stating how tough they are on the i.r.s., but there is no need to restate common law and -- current law and i think that this one is different in the sense that while other amendments that i may not approve of or support speak to an issue that hasn't been spoken to before or repeats something we've dealt with before, this one speaks to an issue that mr. crenshaw already took care of in the bill. and that's my opposition to it and that's why i think the bill -- the amendment is unnecessary.

the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. serrano: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague from new york for his concern about this . i'm concerned as well. i appreciate the fact that what the chairman has said, that this expands the reach, it expands the authority. if indeed all of our agencies had a requirement under the federal records act and they followed it, i wouldn't be here. but understand significant questioning of the archivist of our nation, he indicated to me, under significant questioning, that the i.r.s., and quote again, did not follow the law. that is the purpose of this amendment, to make sure there is more teeth available, even than what is put in this good bill. to make sure that the i.r.s.

follows the law. i would ask my colleagues for support for this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. farenthold of texas. at the end of the bill, before the short title, add the following, section, none of the funds in this act may be available for the office of management and budget to

process or approve something that does not include the following phrase, a portioned amounts are not -- apportioned amounts are not available for any position held by an employee with respect to whom the president of the senate or the speaker of the house of representatives has certified a statement of facts to the united states attorney under section 104 of the revised statutes 2, u.s.c., 194. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: thank you, mr. chairman. today i rise to offer an teamed -- to offer an amendment that would prohibit funding to any federal employee who has been found in contempt of congress. as a member of the oversight and government reform committee, i've had serious concerns about the nonresponsiveness of certain federal officials to legitimate congressional oversight activities. in some of these situations, the actions have been taken by this house to hold these

officials in contempt of congress. specifically my amendment prevents funds from being made available for the office of management and budget to process or approve an apportionment request from an executive agency that does not include the following language, apportioned amounts are not available for any position which is held by an employee with respect to whom the president of the senate or the speaker of the house of representatives has certified a statement of facts to the united states attorney under section 104 of the revised statutes, 2, u.s.c., 194. what the export he is -- experts and lawyerses tell me this means is we won't pay folks who have been held in contempt of congress. the taxpayers don't need to be funding somebody who is not cooperating with their elected representatives and it's gotten so bad in this entire body has held them in contempt. if somebody has failed to do his or her job in the private sector or in any other

environment, most -- they wouldn't get paid and i think the federal government theeds -- needs to follow this. let me give you a little bit of background on the process so you understand how this is going to work. funds apportioned to executive agencies or apportioned or handed out by the aomb, an executive agency must submit a request to the o.m.b. 30 days before the start of the fiscal year, within 15 days of the enactment of the appropriation act. the o.m.b. then determines how these executive agency's fund will be apportioned. this amendment would require an executive agency to include the quoted language in their portionment -- apportionment request to the o.m.b. which would prevent the o.m.b. from allocating funds to an agency for the salaries of federal employees who have been found in contempt of congress. to me this is just common sense. we don't pay employees who don't cooperate with their boss, we're the elected representatives of the people, we are the boss. and we need to enact this legislation to ensure those in contempt of congress do not

continue to receive taxpayer funds. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member wish to claim time in opposition? the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: i have an amendment -- mr. grayson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay any individual at an annual rate of grade one, steps one, two,

ree, four, five or six, or grade two, step one or two, as defined in the salaries table, 214-gs, published by the office of personnel management. further, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay any individual at an hourly basic rate of grade one, steps one, two, three, four, five, or six, or grade two, step one or two. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from florida, and a member owesed -- florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: mr. chairman, this amendment would end the federal government's practice of paying poverty wages to its workers. and hopefully set an example for the private sector to stop paying poverty wages to its workers. my metropolitan area of florida has the lowest average wages of any of the 50 biggest cities in america. it's time to end this and to

pay people fairly. a fair day's work should result in a fair day's pay. now the reason why we have to end poverty wages in america is simple. it's just too expensive to be poor in america. if you're poor, it's difficult to buy or rent a place to live, to buy or lease a car to drive, even to get electricity from a utility company to, to save any money at all, or even to open a bank account. it's too expensive to be poor in america. journalist barbara aaronwright put it best. she said this, if you can't afford the first month's rent and security deposit you need in order to rent an apartment, you may get stuck in an overpriced residential motel. if you don't have a kitchen or refrigerator or microwave, you'll find yourself falling back on convenience store food, which in addition to its nutritional deficits, is also alarmingly overpriced. if you need a loan, as most

poor people eventually do, you will end up paying an interest rate many times more than what a more affluent borrower would be charged. the poor pay more. and to be poor, especially with children to support and care for, is a perpetual high-wire act. closed quote. mr. speaker, when i say it's too expensive to be poor in america, i'm not just quoting a poverty advocate, i'm quoting noah wintrap, an official for g.p. morgan chase. yes, even the bankers are telling us that it's too expensive to be poor in america. the federal government pays $8.62 for a grade one worker. you get what you pay for. that's the capitalist way. if a government worker has to take another job to get by, then that worker can't focus on doing

a good job. if a federal worker is working 80 hours a week just to survive, he's not going to do a good job. my amendment would not allow the government to pay anyone less than $10.10. according to the c.b.o., it doesn't cost the federal government a single dime extra and supported by the american federation of federal employees. $10.10 is not enough but it is a start. paying workers is not enough but at least a start. minimum wage gives you $1,200 a month to live on if you work a full-time job, 40 hours a week. from that $1,200 a month, you must pay your social security taxes, medicare taxes, you must pay for your food, for your clothing, housing,

transportation and also, by the way for the food and clothing of your children. that's not possible. it's not possible to live that way and we can't expect people to do that. in fact the taxpayers subsidize them through food stamps, medicaid, through the earned income credit and a dozen other ways we make up tore the shortfall that their employers are not paying them enough to keep them alive. it's time we take a stand and i hope this body will pay federal workers above poverty wages and urge the body to accept this amendment. $10.10, not $7.25. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: to claim time in

opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i just got this amendment a little bit ago and i don't quite understand what the gentleman is trying to do. as i read the amendment, it basically says you just can't pay federal employees. now if i'm a federal employee and somebody says you can't pay me this wage, i guess i can either come to work and not get paid or if you decide not to pay me, so i'll decide not to come to work anymore. i have to believe a lot of people are looking at this and say, gee, got a guy standing up, the gentleman from florida, that says we aren't going to pay you. and i guess on behalf of the federal employees, i have to oppose that, because i think all federal employees ought to be paid and i don't think we should pass legislation saying they can't be paid. i would urge my colleagues to

oppose this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. crenshaw: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. grayson: i appreciate the creativity of my coleeg's argument. this eliminates the poverty rates set forth in the g.s. schedule, the germ schedule and replaces them with the existing higher rates. all we're saying here is grade one, steps one, two, three, four and five are below poverty level. i don't see how this amendment could lead to the scenario that the gentleman from florida is describing. it would mean these workers would not be paid poverty wages but a proper day's pay for a proper day's work. and given the fact that the

afge, which is responsible for representing these workers supports this amendment and rejects the nightmare scenario described by the gentleman from florida. i would hope for the gentleman's support for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i just want to read this again. it says none of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay any individual at an annual rate of grade one, step one, two, three, four, five six. it says you can't be paid at that rate. doesn't say anything about raising or lowering your salary. it says you can't be paid. i think this is something we ought to reject. and my urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18 -- the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grayson: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the table. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by massie of ken tuck. none of the amounts made available under titles 4 and 8 may be used by any authority of the government of the district of columbia to prohibit the ability of any person to possess, acquire, use, sell or trns port a firearm except to the extent such activity is

prohibited by federal law. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: i resevere a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from kentucky and a member op opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: this would stop the district of columbia of preventing any action from possessing or transporting a firearm. despite the u.s. supreme court's decision in clict of columbia versus heller, struck down the unconstitutional d.c. handgun ban and still difficult for residents to exercise their god-given right to bear arms. congress has the authority to legislate in this area. pursuant to article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the constitution

which gives congress the authority to exercise exclusive legislation over the district of columbia. through unreasonable regulation, arbitrary time limits and waiting periods and ridiculous registration renull period for guns that have already been registered. the bureaucrats continue to interfere with the district's citizens' right to self-defense sm the district of columbia has passed the first law ever in the united states that requires a citizen who is already legally registered a gun to pay for rerecommendation, go to police headquarters and submit to invasive photographing and fingerprinting. this is pure harassment. why would the d.c. government want to punish law-abiding citizens who want to denied themselves from criminals? as everyone knows, criminals, by

definition, don't care about the laws. they'll get the guns any way they can. does anyone actually believe that strict gun control laws will prevent criminals from getting guns? it prevents good people from being able to protect themselves and their families in the event of a robbery, home invasion or other crime. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. . for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recksnigs mr. serrano: i make a point of order because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rules state an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be order if changing existing law. it also adds a requirement on d.c. that it doesn't add anywhere else. it imposes additional duties by requiring law enforcement or the

d.c. council to determine what is prohibited by federal law before they are allowed to legislate. now we know that folks like to sound good on certain issues by legislating from here, but the city council should not be asked to incur these extra duties, new duties that they don't have now. and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. r. massie: i i degree with the gentleman's point there. congress has the constitutional authority to legislate and legislate overall matters over the district of columbia. if a law enforcement officer is not already familiar with federal laws, then i question whether he should be a law enforcement officer. but most of all, i would make

the point that the underlying bill already contains language that is virtually identical in form to the amendment that i have offered, for instance section 809 states that none of the federal funds contained in this act may be used to carry out any rule, law or regulation or reduce penalties with possession, use or distribution of any scheduled 1 substance under the controlled substance act and there are multiple examples in the underlying bill where the structure of those portions of the bill are identical to my amendment and equire knowledge of law. i yield back. the chair: the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination by the district of columbia as to the state of federal firearm law. it has not been shown that this determination is already required. the amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in

violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. mr. crenshaw: i move to lay the motion on the table. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. -- chair: the question is

-- chair: the question is

the chair: the gentleman has appealed the ruling of the chair. the question is, shall the decision of the chair stand as a judgment of the committee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the decision of the chair stands. as the judgment of the committee.

for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. marino of pennsylvania. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to collect any underpayment of any tax imposed by the internal revenue code of 1986, to the extent such underpayment is attributable to the taxpayer's loss of records, except in the case of fraud. marne -- >> mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved.

pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from pennsylvania and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. marino: i thank the chair and the ranking member for their hard work and dedication during the appropriations process and look forward to working with them on a number of important issues surrounding the treatment of taxpayers by the i.r.s. i will be withdrawing this amendment at the conclusion of my allotted time, however i wish to make a point. i agree with the steps that the committee has taken within this legislation, but feel more must be done to ensure equal treatment for all taxpayers. my amendment would prohibit the i.r.s. from pursuing claims against taxpayers for underpayment where the issue is lost records, except in the case of fraud. according to its own publications, the i.r.s.

recommends that taxpayers keep records up to seven years and more in some cases to respond to to -- to potential audits. this is often necessary for individuals and corporations, to retain records for years, and potentially longer for businesses. depending upon the circumstances and types of records. the loss of records can have significant repercussions for the taxpayer and can result in penalty fees and payments of back taxes with interest. should these taxpayers be audited, the burden is on them, yes, the burden is on them to produce proper records. not the i.r.s. while these regulations make sense as we do not want taxpayers improperly withholding taxes, they properly owe under the current tax system, it is unfortunate that the one agency promulgating the regulations does not follow these strict standards. we now know the i.r.s., through

its employee, ms. lois lerner, director of exempt organizations, unfairly targeted and scrutinized conservative groups in their applications for tax-exempt status. under the i.r.s. rules, ms. learner -- lerner was required to retain her records discussing policy decisions and discussions in paper form, including those related to the decision to probe conservative organizations. however, ms. lerner refused to follow protocol and to make matters worse her email copies were lost due to a so-called computer crash. given ms. lerner's blatant disregard to keep records properly in accordance with i.r.s. rules, it is patently unfair to require taxpayers to follow such burdensome standards. in addition, the i.r.s. commissioner testified on the topic of ms. lerner's emails

multiple times before the oversight and government reform committee suggesting that there would be no issue in producing the emails. however, the commissioner knew there was an issue with ms. lerner's computer in february and that the emails were certainly lost in march. despite this knowledge, he failed to notify congress until june. this is outrageous. while the i.r.s. is trying to evade explaining the loss of records, we should prohibit the i.r.s. from measureslessly pursuing taxpayers for the exact same fault. with this i yield 30 seconds to mr. crenshaw, my colleague from florida, and the chairman of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. crenshaw: i support his amendment although i reserved the point of order. are you going to withdraw the amendment pretty soon?

i would just inquire if the gentleman intends to withdraw the point of order -- i mean, withdraw the amendment? mr. marino: i do. i'm going to do that during my closing right here. i cha the -- i thank the chairman for his support of the principle of my amendment. and while i recognize this would be legislative language in an appropriations bill, i welcome the opportunity to work with the chair and my other colleagues to properly investigate this situation and ensure that similar situations of government abuse does not arise in the future. i request unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at this time and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: without objection, he amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i have a new and improved amendment on the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. heck of washington. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the

funds made available in this act may be used with respect to the states of alabama, alaska, arizona, california, colorado, connecticut, delaware, florida, hawaii, illinois, iowa, kentucky, maine, maryland, massachusetts, michigan, minnesota, mississippi, missouri, montana, nevada, new hampshire, new jersey, new mexico, new york, north carolina, oregon, rhode island, south carolina, tennessee, utah, vermont, washington, or wisconsin, or the district of columbia, to penalize a financial institution solely because the institution provides financial services to an entity that is a manufacturer, producer or a person that participates in any business or organized activity that involves handling marijuana or marijuana products and engages in such activity pursuant to a law established by a state or a unit of local government. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 661, the gentleman from washington and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. this is a referendum on public safety. it follows the exact intent but is technically perfected of the earlier amendment that was offered and i thank the gentleman for pointing out its technical flaws. that has been corrected. it is a referendum on public safety. if you want to render an all-cash sector of the economy in the 23 states that allow for medical marijuana and the two states that allow for adult recreational use of marijuana, you will make them unsafe. that is for certain. i entreat you to pick up yesterday's "u.s.a. today" and read the excellent article including the citation of several security experts about what will happen with a certainty, inevitably, if we do not take this measure. if you want to keep marijuana out of the hands of children and if you want to keep cash out of the hands of gangs and

cartels, you will support this amendment. with that, mr. chair, i would like to yield one minute of my time to the gentlelady from the state of nevada. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlelady from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of this amendment. the medical marijuana industry is rapidly taking root in nevada. our local governments are developing regulations and issuing licenses as we speak. yet representatives of this exciting industry continue to raise the same concern, lack of access to banks, which is critical for the safe operation of any small business. this commonsense measure would respect states' rights, add more transparency, facilitate regulation, protect the public and foster the growth of small business. i urge your vote in favor. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chair. at this minute i yield a minute of time to the gentlelady from the state of california. the chair: the gentlelady from

california is recognized. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank congressman heck for yielding and for your bold and tremendous leadership on this. i'm prude to join you and mr. perlmutter and mr. rohrabacher in co-sponsoring this bipartisan, commonsense amendment. this amendment would provide important certainty to business owners, employees, government agencies and financial institutions in 34 states and jurisdictions that have passed marijuana reform laws. by prohibiting federal agency from undulyy penalizing financial institutions from providing basic banking services like opening a checking account, this amendment would ensure that legitimate business owners can comply with state regulations and that regulators and law enforcement can hold businesses accountable. i recently had a chance to visit one of these small businesses in my home district of oakland, california, and know how big and -- an impact the access to financial services can have. when these businesses are unable to access financial services, they are forced to use unsatisfactory cash-based

transactions that lack transparency, accountability and create a threat to public safety. i was proud to co-sponsor a similar amendment to the commerce, justice, state appropriations bill that passed the house. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: a little earlier we had a discussion about this and i pinted out that it's clear that it's still illegal under federal law to manufacture, to distribute, or to dispense federal law. that's the federal law. there's also a federal law that says banks can't launder the proceeds of illegal activities. and as we talked about earlier, we've got the fact that the treasury is giving guidance on how to facilitate the sale of

marijuana. and the point is, the law is the law. the federal law, i just stated. and i don't think we can go around picking and choosing which states the federal law applies to. the federal law is the federal law. that's the way it ought to be. i think that the fact that we have those two laws, when somebody violates those laws, that's wrong. earlier this evening, we adopted an amendment that corrected that, this seeks to go back the other way. i would just urge people to vote no on this because we have a federal law that controls and we can't pick and choose who gets to comply and who doesn't. with that, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized for 2 1/2 -- recognized, he has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. >> i recognize the gentleman

from colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> to my friend from florida, i would agree except that the world has moved. businesses that are legal in these vast array of states should be able to operate in a business-like fashion. they should be able to have checking accounts and credit cards and payroll accounts. instead of operating solely in cash that invites robberies, invites assault and battery, invites tax evasion. mr. perlmutter: and the banking system should be able to proride for that instead of just operating in a cash setting. so we need to limit and avoid a crime that the cash invites and we need to allow these businesses to operate in a business-like fashion. the states and the people of those states have chosen to move forward. we should not, through the banking system, try to stop that and then create crime in its wake. i would yield back to my friend

from washington. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> the earlier vote did not approve the opposite amendment. the decision was to affirm this amendment and then the roll call was provided and is pending. secondly, the will of this body has been man tested on -- manifested on one occasion, an amendment similar to this one in the commerce, justice and science and it passed by a clear majority in this chamber. lastly, and again, this is about public safety. this is about keeping marijuana out of the hands of children and cash out of the hands of gangs and cartels mr. heck: that's what this is about. i'm stunned to learn that the party whose heritage was in favor of states rights no longer sees fit to uphold the states who have gone in this direction, who have through their state legislatures have made tightly controlled markets

for this substance. this isn't about being if favor or against marijuana con sums, this is about public safety. and i entreat you to support it as you once did before. i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman, and i thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. >> mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment made in order

by the rule at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6ing printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. price of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from georgia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i want to commend the chairman of the appropriations committee for the work he's done on this, this has been yomen's work, we haven't done -- yoemen's work, we haven't done this appropriation bill in a number of years. my bill deals with the internal revenue service. the internal revenue service, as you and the american people know, by law, may not release any personal taxpayer information. it must be protected. and it's -- and it's clear that what we've had over the past year or so is the revelation of

a huge violation of the public trust that's occurred as it pertains to the i.r.s.'s lawful requirement to protect taxpayer information. internal revenue code section 6103 is what this amendment deals with. it's a portion of the code that is a taxpayer protection provision, written to prevent unlawful disclosure of confidential taxpayer information. the recent actions of the inch r.s., whether it's the targeting of conservative social welfare groups or the unlawful disclosure of an organization's tax return and donor list, are nothing less than chilling, mr. chairman. what the i.r.s. has done is targeted conservative groups to determine whether or not, allegedly to determine whether or not they ought to be granted tax exempt status. in so doing, they have asked for those organizations' donor list a list of hardworking americans who of taken some of their resources and provided support for these organizations

and then the i.r.s. took the donor list information, not only kept the organization from getting tax exempt status as would be appropriate, but took the doe lohr nist and released it to political enemies or political opponents of the organization, apparently for political purposes. this is outrageous activity, mr. chairman. this amendment is a simple amendment that reminds the internal revenue service that their primary responsibility is to serve the american taxpayer. given the information that's come to light over the last year or so, i would suspect that every member of this congress should support holding the i.r.s. accountable to the rule of law. the i.r.s. has violated the trust of the american people and it's imperative that the bdy hold them accountable for their egregious action. it's a commonsense amendment, it's an amendment that's supportive and responsive to our constituents and i urge its adoption. i'm pleased to yield the time he may consume to the chairman

from florida. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think every american taxpayer needs to be assured that their personal information will be held in strict confidence. that's what this amendment does. particularly at a time when the i.r.s. has demonstrated a lack of ability to either self police or self correct, when each week we read about a new revelation of some sort of bureaucratic incompetence or maybe willful disregard for the law, i think it's more important than ever to make sure that every taxpayer knows that personal information is going to be held in strict confidence and i urge the adoption of this amendment. mr. price: i thank the chairman for his support, i urge support of this amendment by my colleagues in the house and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. does any member wish to claim time in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the seament agreed to. -- the amendment is agreed. to -- is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek reck thigs? >> i have an amendment at the desk. number 52. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. desantis of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for any internal revenue servicence tant message of other system that's not searchable or arkivel at all times. mr. crenshaw: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is

reserved. the gentleman from -- pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. desantis: it was troubling to be reviewing emails the inch r.s. produced for us after we asked for them for over a year. of course they gave them to us on the afternoon of july 3, so as to minimize press damage. but the emails showed lois lerner sending an email to a technician saying, you know, congress will ask for our emails and i told people in the i.r.s. they need to be careful about what they say. question, if we do an instant message and the system was called o.c.s. will those be immune to congressional oversight? the technician said, that's the default setting, you can make it archiveable and searchable, and that was troubling. it was almost like lerner as a

matter of course is conducting herself in a way to obstruct the proper oversight. that's troubling with an agency that's this powerful. i think what this amendment will do is prevent that. this is saying exactly what lois lerner is asking about. the settings, if you're going to use funds, the settings have been to be turned on. -- if on't, the set -- you don't turn the settings on, you can't use funds to operate it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from florida is elect niced. mr. desantis: given that a point of order has been lonled, i withdraw amendment number 52 and offer as an alternative, amendment number 54. the chair: without objection he amendment is withdrawn.

the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. desantis of florida. at the end of the bill, before she short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the internal revenue service to create machine readable materials that are not subject to the safeguards established pursuant to section 3105 of title 44, united states code. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minute. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. desantis: i think this amendment accomplishes a similar objective that i articulated a moment ago. i would add, it's very troubling, if you were called into court to defend yourself against the i.r.s. and they asked you to produce certain documents and -- in discovery and your defense was, well, the documents have been destroyed,

you would be presumed essentially guilty. they would have an adverse inference lodged against you. that's what this amendment is getting to. the i.r.s. has to practice what they preach. they should be held to the exact same standard as the american people are held to with their taxes and they should follow the record retention requirements under federal law. i think it's a commonsense amendment and i urge that my colleagues adopt the amendment and i will yield my remaining time to my colleague from florida. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman and i want to applaud him for correcting any procedural flaws, it makes an excellent point and i accept the amendment. mr. desantis: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields. does any member wish to claim time in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the ayes have it. the amendment -- mr. desantis: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. desantis: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 57. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. desantis of florida. at the end of the bill, before she short -- before the short title, insert the follow, none of the funds made available by this act to the internal revenue service may be obligated or expended on conferences. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house -- the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. desantis: last year, the

oversight committee did a review to investigate an i.g. report about a lavish conference put on by the i.r.s., $4 million for one conference. expenses included $135,000 on outside speakers, including $17,000 for a speaker who created paintings on stage to make his point that one must free, quote, the thought process to find creative solutions to challenges, end quote. and the troubling thing about the report was that the bulk of that money, $3 ppt 2 million, came from -- $3.2 million, came from unused funds allocated for hiring. this is at the exact same type the i.r.s. began to single out conservative groups that sought tax exempt status, in part, they said, because the agency simply did not have the manpower to handle the number of applications pouring in.

we've debunked that idea that somehow there was a torrent of application bus golly gee, if that was true, why are you spending $3.2 million on these conferences? so i think the i.r.s. has abused the trust of the american taxpayer with respect to conferences and i think it should be held accountable. now some say some say that taxpayers need to be forced to fund these conferences because it helps with i.r.s. employees' morale. i just got to tell you, i'm more concerned with the morale of the american people. when taxpayers see an arrogant agency flout the law they become demoralized. and rightfully so. a time when military officers are receiving pink slips, there is no way we should allow the i.r.s. to persist with these conferences. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

does any member wish to claim time in opposition? the question is on the amendment -- the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: thank you. i think the mistake we're making here is the one we've been making all day. not only is it targeted only at the i.r.s., which seems to be the desire to continue to do this for the next 24 hours or for how long this bill lasts, , if you say no conferences of this type, or if you limit a number of conferences, ok, we can discuss that. but to say that one agency in the federal government cannot have any kind of conferences, none at all, zero, nada, that really speaks to just the continuous desire to destroy

the i.r.s. now, there were issues concerning the conferences, there were issues concerning the conferences for other agencies, we've dealt with that, we can deal with this. but to say no conferences at all is to suggest that an agency cannot operate the way it needs to. so i think this is just another attack on the i.r.s. it makes for good headlines, even at this time of night. but i think it's the wrong thing to do and i would hope we could oppose it or that the gentleman would withdraw the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. pursuant to --

clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. it is blackburn 073. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, a, each amount made available by this act is hereby reduced by 1%. b, the reduction in subsection a shall not apply with respect to the following accounts and programs. one, payment of government losses in shipment under department of the treasury, bureau of the -- mrs. blackburn: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to waive the reading. the chair: is there objection?

without objection, the reading is dispensed with. pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentlelady from tennessee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. and, first of all, i want to thank mr. crenshaw, who has done a wonderful job on bringing this bill to the floor. and as i did with all of the appropriations bills, it is -- i -- a focus of mine to come in and ask for an additional 1% cut on top of the great work that has already been done. and i think it's important to give credit to our appropriations committee. this is a $21 billion bill. and it is appropriating $566 million less than what was appropriated in fiscal year 2014. and it is $2.2 billion less

than what the president requested. that is to be commended. and our appropriations team has done a terrific job on beginning to rein in what the federal government spends. the republican house leadership is to be commended for making this a focus. get the fiscal house in order. i think we have to go a step further, and that's the purpose of my 1% across-the-board spending cut amendment. what we need to do now is engage the bureaucracy, engage these federal agencies, rank and file employees, to come to the table with their recommendations of how we continue to cut. we're $17 trillion in debt. we cannot continue to borrow 30 cents of every dollar that we spend. we have to think about the future for our children, our grandchildren. this is an amendment that we should all support because we

do this for our children. for the sovereignty of our nation. for the fiscal health of our nation. for years to come. i think it's important to note that through the years, because governors use across-the-board spending cuts, democrat governors, a former democrat governer from my home state of tennessee, you've got the democratic governor in new york, you've got the governor of missouri, they've all used across-the-board cuts. the american people like this idea. they like having the bureaucracy engaged in saving money. a "the washington post"/abc news poll from march 6, 2013, revealed that 61% of all americans even supported a 5% across-the-board cut in federal spending. it is time for us to rein this in and get our fiscal house in order. this is a way to save an additional $228 million and i

reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i rise in reluctant opposition to my good friend. she makes an excellent point and i think everyone agrees that we ought to try to rein in this culture of spending and put in place a culture of saving. i've been working my entire congressional career to do that. and one of the things that we do in the appropriations process is we have hearings, we listen to people, they try to justify their requests. sometimes when programs work well they might receive an increase. when people are not doing very well, like the i.r.s., they have their requests denied and

actually are funded at lower levels. what's interesting, last night on this floor we added about $1 billion to our debt reduction by taking that $1 billion out of the i.r.s. and so when we set our priorities, we do that day to day. in this case we had 12 hearings. if you look at our bill, there are actually nine programs that are just flat-out eliminated. they're gone. it wasn't a 1% or x percent, it was just that's not a program that's vital to the functioning of the federal government so it's gone, it's been eliminated. there are several of the agencies that we reduced their spending, their funding because we figured out that they could do with a little bit less. but when you take an additional 1% across the board, after you've had a lot of time and energy put in place to set the

right priorities, i don't think you take into consideration that some programs are better than others. i know my friend cares a lot about women's business centers. and they received ancrease under our appropriations bill because we think they're doing a great job. the small business administration does great work at creating private sector jobs. and the women's business center, because we thought they were doing well, they receive ancrease. now, i don't know that she really wants to cut them. she says she's going to not apply these cuts to the federal judiciary, and i think that's appropriate. actually the federal courts are pretty happy. last night several millions of dollars were added to the federal courts. but i guess the simple point is that you have to take into consideration the merit of every program. if we didn't do anything, if we just showed up one day and said , how should we fund these people, then i think it's appropriate, let's just cut them across the board.

but when you spend time and energy in setting the priorities and making hard choices, that's what we've done. and we're proud of the work that we've done and i appreciate her compliments that we have done great work. and the fact that she'd like to cut 1% more across the board i don't think is the right way to observe the situation. and i appreciate what she's trying to do, but i don't think in this case it's the right approach and i'd also like to yield some time to the ranking member, mr. serrano from new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: thank you. i also rise in opposition to this bill. the only difference here, mr. chairman, is that we're not attacking the i.r.s. now we're attacking financial services subcommittee. the fact of life is that this subcommittee took the biggest hit of any subcommittee in the house. and while i may disagree with how some of the bill came out, i've made it clear to mr. crenshaw that what i disagree with the most is the riders and

the allocation. with a different allocation we would have had a different bill. so to now cut 1% to the committee that took the biggest hit is really to just try to cripple the bill completely. tanned serves no purpose. other than -- and it serves no purpose. other than to be able to say that you cut. it would be nice to see if these kinds of things for me would happen on the military budget every so often but we're not going to see. that we're only going to see it on bills like this one which really service a lot of people and i think that the chairman is right and i join him in opposing this amendment and would hope it would be defeated. thank you. mrs. blackburn: reclaiming my time. mr. crenshaw: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate the work that the chairman has done on this bill and our committee, our appropriations committee is to be commended. i think we do have to recognize washington has a spending problem. they don't have a revenue

problem. they've got a spending and priority problem. we see it every single day. what i'm asking is to engage those rank and file employees, have them find one penny on the dollar out of their appropriation that they could save in order to get this burden of debt off the back of our children and grandchildren. one penny on a dollar. it has worked in the states, it works in our county and city governments, people like that and appreciate that you push for better stewardship and it is the right thing for us to do as we watch the debt totals climb, skyrocket, and explode. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. blackburn: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, blackburn 072. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to provide funds from the hardest hit fund program established by the secretary of the treasury under title 1 of the emergency economic stabilization act of 2008, 12, united states code, 5211, to any state or local government for the purpose of funding pension obligations of such state or local government. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 661, the gentlelady from tennessee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment that would prevent the federal government from bailing out public pensioners in cities such as detroit and chicago. week of been reading for the past several months that the obama administration has been in talks with the city of detroit to transfer $100 million to the city. according to an april 16, 2014, article from "the detroit free press," the administration has looked to transfer $100 million from the hardest-hit fund to shore up detroit's unfunded pension liability. the hardest hit fund was created by the obama administration in 2010 with money from the 2008 stimulus package. the money is meant to help states that have been adversely affected by the housing down turn. and that's according again to "the detroit free press."

the article adds that the -- and i'm quoting, $100 million in federal money was discussed tuesday night in breakneck negotiations that resulted in a tentative deal to reduce pension cuts for the city's retired general work force, end quote. i refuse to let taxpayers be on the hook for unfunded pension liability made by big labor organizations. cities such as detroit and chicago and others where big labor has created these funds now have to find their way out of the mess they have created. it is my understanding that the city of detroit has reached ap agreement with the state of michigan to shore up the funds for the time being, however it does not foreclose this as a possibility for it to occur in the future, for detroit or

other city where big labor agreements have caused financial destruction. according to an april 7, 2014, article from chicago -- chicagobusiness.com, chicago's unfunded pension liability stands at $19.5 billion. a february 20, 2013, article in "forbes" notes that federal bailouts of state pension funds, and i'm quoting, would implicitly encourage states to keep spending and doling out entitlements as doing so is popular for politicians even if unsustainable, end quote. the article adds this is especially true in liberal-leaning areas where public sector labor unions have a lot of control. mr. chairman, we must foreclose the administration to bail out a big labor as a possibility. i refuse to stand by and watch hardworking taxpayers be on the hook for the irresponsible decisions of liberal big labor groups and i reserve the alance of my time.

mr. crenshaw: will the gentlelady yield? i want to agree with you that i don't think taxpayers should bail out detroit's shortfall or any other city's shortfall. i support your amendment. mrs. blackburn: i appreciate that i reserve my time. >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognize for five minutes. mr. serrano: this is really a mean amendment, single out one city, one city that is hurting, to single out labor, when in fact it's not label labor but the people who have those pension plans and now may not have a pension plan. to single them out. but out of respect for the gentlewoman, i am sure there have been many instances throughout history and in recent years when your area, your state has been helped by federal dollars when it was hurting and we all gogget to the -- got together and did

that, be it a mood, be it a fire, be it a natural disaster, whatever it may be, we came together to help. detroit has its problems. and detroit might have made some mistakes but to single it out in an amendment and to say that we cannot help in any way, shape, or form is really mean and mean-spirited and wrong. it may look good to single an urban center out, it may look good to single out a place that is hurting, but that's not the american way. the american way, i can tell you as a new yorker, when new york was hurting, people came to its aid. when we were attacked, we came to its aid. sure this is different, but detroit is hurting right now and to single it out on this house floor, at 10 to 8:00, at this time, to single it out as not being worthy of federal

help is really just wrong. and then to take the opportunity to attack organized labor by suggesting that somehow they are to blame and therefore they should not get any help is also mean-spirited. so i've seen in the time that ve been here difficult amendments, but this one is one that really takes the cake. and you know, republicans have supported bailing out banks and financial institutions that were deemed too large to fail. we were all for saving the auto industry and i was for it too. we were all for making sure that big institutions did not fail. and while i questioned it, many of us went along wit. here to single out detroit at its worst moment when it is hurting like no city has hurt in a long time, is just the wrong thing to do. if this is what the gentlewoman

wants to do, i guess, you know, there's no way to stop her but i would wish she would take a moment to think about this before she goes any further with this. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: i find the gentleman's choice of words so interesting. i think he used mean and mean-spirited several times. let me tell you what's mean-spirited. mean-spirited is looking at future generations and saying, you didn't want this, you didn't ask for it, but guess what, you've got a $17 trillion bill on your head right now, the birth tax for every child born in this country is $54,000. is that good? of course not. is that mean-spirited? you bet it is. you're saying you owe this money, like it or not, because washington can't get its spending habits under control. washington is spending money it does not have to pay for

programs that my grandkids do not want. you're saying it's not the american way. let me tell you something, using borrowed money to pay for debt that have not been created by this government, that's not the way we do business. i would remind you, a congressman from tennessee stood on this floor at one point in history and he reminded the body that this was not their money to give. it is the taxpayers' money. that member of congress was davy coo -- crockett. this is the taxpayers' money. they expect us to be good stewards. bailing out city that was not been good stewards of their money is not what this body should be doing with federal tax dollars that come into our coffers. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady

yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. mr. serrano: mr. chairman, i'd like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: i have an amendment at the desk, blackburn 080. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee, at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act to the federal communications commission may be used with respect to the states of alabama, arkansas, california, colorado, florida, louisiana, michigan, minnesota, missouri, nebraska, nevada, north carolina, pennsylvania, south carolina, tennessee,

texas, utah, virginia, washington, and wisconsin, to prevent such states from implementing their own state laws with respect to the provision of broadband internet access service as defined in section 8.11 of title 47, code of federal regulations by the state or municipality or other political subdivision of the state. mr. serrano: i'd like to reserve a point of order, mainly because we haven't seen this text or this amendment until this very moment, in fact, we still haven't seen it. the chair: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentlelady from tennessee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: my amendment seeks to prohibit any taxpayer funds from being used by the federal communications commission, the f.c.c., to preempt state municipal

broadband laws. in other words, we don't need unelected federal agency bureaucrats in washington telling our state what they can and can't do with respect to protecting their limited taxpayer moneys in private enterprises. as a former state senator from tennessee, i strongly believe in states' rights, i know that's an issue that's important to many of my colleagues in this chamber. and that's why i found it deeply troubling that f.c.c. chairman tom wheeler has repeatedly stated this past year that he intends to preempt states' rights when it comes to the role of state policy over municipal broadland. -- broadband. chairman wheeler's statements posed a direct challenge to constitutionality of state sovereign function. it wrongly assumes washington knows what is best and forgets that the right answer doesn't always come from the top down. mr. chairman, 20 states across our country have held public debates and enacted laws that

limit municipal broadband to varying degrees. these state legislatetures and governors have not only listened but have responded to the voices of their constituents. they are closer to the people than the chairman of the f.c.c. they are accountable to their voters. states have spoken and said we should be careful and deliberate in how we allow public entry into our vibrant communications marketplace a sector of our economy that invests tens of billions of dollars each year. accounts for tens of thousands of jobs, and serves millions of consumers. municipal broadband projects have had a mixed bag of results. there have been some successes and also some spectacular failures that have left taxpayers on the hook. for example, look at the failed utopia project that created massive disruption and is challenging taxpayers. in fact, it was recently reported that the residents of

11 utah cities would be billed as much as $20 a month as part of a plan to salvage the ate's once-heralded utopia cyberopt -- fiberoptic network. a model n't sound like the federal government needs to force against the will of state governments. state government understand and are more attentive to the needs of the american people than unelected federal bureaucrats in washington. that's why this past june i was joined by 59 of our colleagues in sending a letter to chairman wheeler stating our concerns and requesting a response to a list of questions. questions that we're still waiting to hear from him to respond to. the u.s. senate also sent a letter to the f.c.c. on this issue and they are likewise waiting for a response. it seems the f.c.c. is content to tell our states how they will manage their sovereign

economic affair bus they won't answer to the congress who is responsible for exercises -- exercising oversight of the agency, inserting the f.c.c. into our state's economic and fiscal affairs sets a dangerous precedent and violates state sovereignty in a manner that warrants deeper examination this congress cannot sit idly by and let an independent agency trample on our states' rights. this is an issue that should be left to our states and if it comes to a point where we need a national standard, then that debate should be held by congress, not the f.c.c. and should be done with the participation of the american people. i urge adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: first to withdraw my point of order, and secondly to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognize for five minutes.

mr. serrano: i do have, and i know it comes at a different time but i do have letters from different groups opposing the amendment. from the national league of cities, national association of counties, national association of telecommunications offices and including the gentleman who gets credit for inventing the internet and i'm not talking about vice president gore, speaking about someone else. whatever happened to localism or local control? this amendment means the federal government will tell every local citizen, mayor and county councilmember that they may not act in their own best interests. any such amendment is an attack on the rights of individual citizens. speaking through their local leaders to determine if their broadband needs are being met. congresswoman blackburn only has to drive an hour and a half down interstate 24 to see where the city-owned electric utility

owns a broadband network, charges $70 a month, enough to cover expense bus affordable enough to attract businesses. her state passed a bill to prevent nearby towns from joining chattanooga and to block other communities from doing it themselves. companies have moved jobs or expanded in chattanooga after learning that the minimum connection speed on the city-owned network was faster than the maximum they had available at headquarters. preemption will not force communities. this is not about forcing states to do anything, but instead stopping states from choking grassroots competition and stopping states from blocking faster networks where none exists. it may sound one way, but a total different interpretation that we have and this amendment could really hurt, in fact, may

hurt the efforts that she claims that she wants to put forth. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: it's important to note what this amendment does is allow those citizens and those cities and states that have made this decision, this is how they want to handle broadband to do it. it gives the power to them and keeps bureaucrats sitting at the f.c.c. from making these decisions and overriding the wishes of our states of those .ities that are located therein i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: should be interesting to note that

chairman upton has legislation that has spoken out on this issue. and the whole issue here is to allow cities to do what they need to do without having major cable companies and so on lobby the state to stop them from doing so. broadband is something we need to expand. that may something like a pun, to make it broader, not to make it limited and should be available everywhere and should be available in every possible and, innerl, subburr city, homes and schools and we have to build the infrastructures to make that happen. again, i repeat, i think her intent is not being met by her amendment and that's why i oppose it and hope we would all oppose it. i yield back.

the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. serrano: i would like a roll call vote on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: i have one final amendment at the desk sm the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. insert the following, section, none of the funds made available may be used by the consumer product safety commission to implement the proposed rule entitled voluntary remedial guidelines. 2013-0040.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentlelady from tennessee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: my amendment would prohibit funds for the volunteer proposed rule and prevent them from moving forward with a rule that would cripple the highly successful voluntary program that is currently in place. for nearly 40 years, the cpsc and manufacturers and retailers have partnered to ensure that the system of voluntary recalls is effectively reducing the safety risks that are posed to the public. they highlighted the success of the program, noting that 90% of the recalls through the award-winning fast track program are implemented within 20 days. the fast track program was created by former cpsc chairman

ann brown to reduce the amount it takes for recalls to be implemented. instead of working to increase the efficiency of its programs, the cpsc proposed rule change kills its most successful program. on may 30, ann brown, a democratic former chairman appointed by president clinton, sent a letter to the energy and commerce committee expressing deep concerns omb the impacts of the commission's proposed rule concerning the substantive provisions of the proposal, former chairman brown stated, and i quote, a fast track procedure would be rendered impossible under these circumstances, end quote. the success of this fast track program is on the commission and the private sector to remove harmful products from the marketplace. the commission now seeks to transform the voluntary recall process into a legal negotiation

equivalent to a settlement program. the proposed changes would require companies seeking to implement a recall to hire an torn to enforce terms with the staff. this places significant burdens on small businesses that use the fast track program because the program allows them to work with the commission staff without having to pay expensive legal fees. the cspc should not discourage companies from working efficiently and effectively when potential hazards or defects are identified. s the letter from former chairman brown said, this is not a political issue, the senators from pennsylvania submitted a letter in january for the docket raising concerns about the proposed changes. senators king sent the commission a letter in march expressing similar concerns and

i ask unanimous consent, mr. chairman, to submit these letters from commissioner brown and the senators into the record. the chair: that request will be covered by general leave. mrs. blackburn: i ask that members of this chamber recognize that the proposed rule change would slow a process meant to be conducted with speed and without red tape and would harm a system that ensures that consumer products sold in the u.s. are the safest in the world. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: since i know the rules for the house, i will direct my comments to you. there is contradiction in what the gentlewoman says because on one hand, she doesn't want government involved in localities.

on the other hand, she wants to tell localities how to act. on the other hand, she doesn't want us to tell the product safety commission how to act. so it becomes very, very confusing. this is an issue we should leave to the discretion of the consumer product safety commission. this is not something we should be micro managing the cpsc on. furthermore, it is a proposed rule and the cspc are reviewing comments at this stage and that's important to note. they are simply reviewing comments at this stage. we in this body should let the process of issuing rules play out as is required in law instead of cherry-picking. this is simply not an area of overregulation since no regulation is yet in effect. so this amendment is unnecessary. i oppose the amendment and i hope my colleagues will as well. and i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: i yield to the chairman. mr. crenshaw: i think the gentlewoman has very well explained it. we have a system that has been working well for 40 years. so i don't think we need to make any unnecessary changes and i would support her amendment and rge my colleagues to vote yes. mrs. blackburn: i thank the chairman and urge support of this amendment. the program in place has worked well and supported by democrats and republicans. the process that they are going through at the agency is spending tremendous amount of money in setting up a system that would force these retailers into legal negotiations and settlements. it's not the way to address

this. the fast track program has been enormously successful. former commissioner brown worked in the clinton administration and was appointed by president clinton and did a great job and should leave it in place and i urge a yes vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee yields. mr. serrano: this agency is one of the better agencies and we read about, baby seats and blankets and all kinds of issues that affect our communities and our daily lives and should stop trying to attack it as some people do. i think this is not a good amendment and should be defeated. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. serrano: i would like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6,

rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman.

the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5 016 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5016 and come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on further consideration of h.r. 5016 and i may include tabular materials on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. it's good to be back here on the floor once again. tonight, we want to carry on our

long-running discussion how to create jobs in this nation and move us all forward, how to rebuild the middle class and make sure that every family has the opportunity to earn a good living, buy a home if they want to, educate their kids and enjoy the fruits of this great nation. we often talk about this in the context of make it in america. this is our jobs agenda and the agenda about how to rebuild this nation and there are seven different parts to it. trade policy, which we are not talking about tonight. taxes, energy, labor, education, research and spend the night talking about this issue, the infrastructure issue of this nation. let's see, in california, it is, yeah, right smack in the middle of commute time. 5:15. i'm from california and my constituents in the sacramento

area on that great interstate 80 are sitting there in a traffic jam. what a surprise. or mab on the cal train returning from the san francisco area and held up behind a freight train that is carrying crude oil. they are waiting and waiting whether on the road, trainor bus. waiting. waiting. waiting. folks, in case you didn't know it, and i know you did, we have a transportation problem in america. we've got a very serious problem. so as we talk about jobs, as we talk about our make it in america agenda, we need to talk about infrastructure and transportation, because this is a big, big issue for america. and it's an issue that affects every single one of us. . my district also has about 150

miles of interstate 5. as you travel from california and head north, last winter, or last year, you would get on interstate 5, youth get past seattle, and then come to a screeching halt. why? because the interstate 5 bridge in washington, d.c., just as you got to the canadian border, collapsed. wow. how could that happen in america? how could it be that our bridges on a major interstate connecting canada, the united states, and mexico would collapse? well, it's because we did not maintain that. it's because our transportation policies are the previous century's policies and they don't fit in this century. so all across america, you're going to see more of this. in a moment, i'm going to turn to my colleague from new york, mr. tonko, and he will undoubtedly talk about the problem on that side. oh, it was a big day here in

the congress. because today, we did what we do so very well. we kicked the can down the road. we have a major transportation crisis right now. this isn't the bridge to nowhere. but this is where we're headed right now. we're headed for a transportation crisis because in about three weeks, maybe four weeks, the transportation funds are going to run out of money system of in an effort to deal with this problem, the united states congress, led by our republican leadership, did what it has done for the last 3 /2 years, and that is, kicking -- taking their can and kicking it down the road. stopgap, temporary transportation funding bill that will provide us with another 10 months of funding.

so that the rest of the nation's transportation systems , the state governments, local governments, the cities, even the federal government, will be perfectly unsure what the game plan is for the future years. how they will plan, nobody knows, because they don't know what to expect from the federal government in terms of funding beyond the next 10 months. which is precisely where we are today. , doing our very best and so well, repeated process of kicking the can down the road, we did it once again. i voted for it. we had no options, unless we wanted to lose several tens of thousands of jobs. oh, yeah, this is what my state government gave to me. if we fall off the bridge and

don't fund transportation, here's what will happen to alifornia. 73,572 jobs will be jeopardized. 5,692 active highway and transit projects will come to a screeching stop which is pretty much what the commuters are doing right now on interstate 80 between sacramento and davis where it's my district. and california has 172,201 miles of public roads that will continue to be in very, very poor condition. so given the options that our republican leadership has presented to us, and by the way, we don't do anything they don't allow us to do, they gave us the opportunity to kick the can down the road. ok, better than nothing but not the solution. i'd like to now turn to my colleague from the state of new york, talk about this system from your area and then i'd like to go back to what we

should be doing. what we must be doing. which is to put in place and four-year transportation program that actually solve ours transportation infrastructure problems, the grow america act. what's the view from the east coast? any better than the west coast? paul tonko my colleague, i yield to you. mr. tonko: thank you. mr. garamendi: excuse me, apparently the speaker has a task for us. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko is recked for one-half of the remaining time as the :00 p.m. designee of the minority leader. mr. tonko: mr. garamendi, let

me thank you for leading us in this hour of discussion, this 53 minutes of discussion, that focuses on the value add, the importance of investment, into transportation projects. back to our humble beginnings as a nation, we were able to cite the relevance of having investments made in transportation. whether it was to address public safety, whether it was to address the needs of commerce, or to grow our nation. transportation investments have provided that lucrative dividend that enables us to be just that much stronger as a nation. to build our competitiveness to the ultimate. that is the wisdom here that comes with an associated investment in transportation. we have throughout our history tremendously sound ideas of how we work together as a nation, with a sense of purpose that

enable us to move forward whether that was investing in an erie canal that gave birth to a necklace of communities called milltowns that allowed people to tether their american dream in those communities as they found life anew here in their new country or whether it was the transcontinental railroad. there was a plan, there was a vision, where we chose to go forward and invest those dollars so as to enable us to connect as a nation. enable taos again sharpen the edge, the competitive edge of this country. or perhaps it was an interstate highway system that found president eisenhower working with democrats and republicans in congress to put together this strategy to have a better way to allow us as states, individual states, to again connect as a nation. so we have, or should be, at

least, inspired by these chapters of our history that show that when we had this vision, when we executed this plan, when we dug deep to make the investment and when we were bold in our initiative, great things happen. there were tremendous responses that came to build commerce, provide for public safety and to again connect the nation. today, the saga is no different. we should respond again in robust fashion and understand that in this new century, it is important for us as we compete in a global economy to offer our business community the best sets of infrastructure investments so that we can move forward with that sound down payment that enables them to function and function well. what we have seen here in the house, as my colleague from california just indicated, was a delay tactic. a kicking a can down the road if you will, and you know, as

it was the only game in town, that was a take it or leave it situation, where we did not ant a trust fund to be emp tied, we move -- emptied, we moved forward with this effort. however the leadership bringing their bill to this floor didn't even have enough members to support this measure so they needed to reach the democrats to say we will move forward with this short-term solution, it is not the optimum, it is not near what is needed and so now the work is needed to put together a legitimate opportunity for us to avoid insolvency in the near future. what do we need to do? we need to have a long-term strategy, we need to go forward to avoid what could have been, without action today, 700,000 jobs lost nationally and some 100,000-plus projects either delayed or coming to a grinding

halt. we need to provide the predictability, the stability for those groups that want to nvest in our infrastructure. no business who involves itself in improving our highways and bridges will take this method seriously unless they feel that, they sense that stability and be sound about the investments we will make in our infrastructure and put together that long-term strategy because as we have witnessed in the past and understand it to be today, that investment in infrastructure is the rock solid cornerstone of a stronger tomorrow. so congressman garamendi, there's work to be done, there's work to be done that will require investments into transportation infrastructure in every region of this country. we know that let's get serious

about the business and avoid the short-term strategies that again get into areas where we smooth pensions, which can create another crisis of another kind, we need to do better than what was done today. we need to go forward, this was the measure that was put before us and again, people saw it as the only opportunity to avoid insolvency of that highway trust fund so here we are, again, challenged in this moment to go forward with much better vision with bolder initiatives and with deep rooted commitment to the needs of this nation. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, thank you so very much. it's always good to be on the floor with us. thank you for bringing to our attention the great infrastructure, there's a

report card out on how our infrastructure is today, this was put together by the engineers and others who do , bridges, f work c-plus, dams d, drinking water, d, hazardous waste, d, inland waterways, d, levees, d, ports, c. public parks and recreation c-minus. rails c-plus. roads, d, schools, d, solid waste, b. i guess we can get rid of our trash, that's good. transit d, waste water d. the entire infrastructure is d. want to know why? here's the reason why. short-term we run out of money. let's take a look here. 2002. spent $325 billion on nondefense structures.

all these things i just talked about. that was 2002, the beginning of the bush presidency. then every year after that, we are now -- i said 2,000, i meant $325 billion. let me get my numbers right. my apologies, but it's $325 billion and now we're down to $225 billion. $100 billion of investment, annual investment disappeared system of now we're running all these d scores. it's fortunate that we're not asking for, i guess we are asking for re-election. we're in trouble. just by the way, i got a phone call from my wife, she said, about the pickup truck, john, i said, what about it? she said, i've got to take it in. the mechanic says the wheels are out of alignment. i said how much will that cost?

somewhere over $100. on average in san francisco, $782 is spent on every car every year to repair for the damages of the poor highways in california. i don't think i have new york, mr. tonko, but i suspect it's no better there. let's talk about the future. excuse me. i don't want to get stuck on the past but it's pretty bad. let's talk about the future. mr. tonko: before you go there, let me share this, because even though it's 27 years old as a memory, it's still vividly captured by so many of us that lived in upstate new york. when i served in the new york state assembly, montgomery county, new york, was -- is -- my home area. and we're a donor county to the new york state throughway system and 27 years ago, 10 lives were lost when a throughway bridge collapsed.

it obviously was a terrible price for those 10 individuals to pay. their family members and friends would remind us that there's no price tag that we can put on that loss. i can tell you the economic impact on many counties in that region was severe. interestingly, no one from that home county, my home county, was lost in that tragedy. some in new york state paid dearly for that tragedy but people whose home state is far away from new york were lost in that tragedy. so that reminds all of us that we're all at risk, no matter where that deficiency may be, and no matter where that lack of investment may fall, we are all at risk because we are interconnected. any failure out there, any

deficiency challenges each and every one of us. so when we talk about the future, that past history of lack of investment needs to remind all of us that there is a worthyness here that this should be a high priority. you talk about the delays that trip has measured and the impact on people within the capital region that i represent in new york is some $1,600 annually in rms of idle time and repairs required and in terms of accidents that might be caused by less than acceptable conditions on those roadways. so this is costing us, as you just indicated, annually and we ought to understand it is about public safety, it's about avoiding accidents and

tragedies. this is the requirement of this chamber and the united states senate and the white house to come together and get things done. this president has urged us to accept his plans to close loopholes that will provide receive news in a long-term strategy, that will provide for work for millions of people in the trades industry, to put their skilled labor abilities to work for us as a nation and to make certain that future consequences like those that were faced in montgomery county with the bridge collapse aren't repeated time and time again. i wanted to set that tone for some very tragic situations that we as a nation have endured. i'm speaking of one state, but i know across the country there have been terrible situations where the infrastructure

weakness grips us with pain and consequence. mr. garamendi: no doubt about that. and i'm thinking about the twin cities and another bridge that collapsed more recently. this is dealing with the reality of transportation. fortunately there is a way to solve the transportation challenges and the infrastructure challenges of this nation. and it has been proposed by president obama, it's called the grow america act. and it is specifically designed to rebuild our crumbling transportation system. it is a comprehensive plan. it deals with all of the various parts of the transportation and infrastructure system. there is a major piece for our rail. there's a major piece for buses and transit within the cities. a piece for the ports, bridges, highways, all of this is

encompassed in the grow america act, which the president and secretary fox of the department of transportation proposed a few months ago. the legislation was presented to the house of representatives introduced here in the house of representatives by delegate leanor homes norton -- eleanor holmes norton about a month and a half ago and it has simply sat there. the transportation and infrastructure committee of this house has not taken it up, although it should. we should be holding hearings on this issue, because this is what we need to address. the rail system, the buses, the ports, the bridges, the highways, the freight systems, the movement of men, women, materials, freight all across this country. the program is a very robust program and it will over four

years bring us almost, almost ack to what we were doing in 2002, because in four years, we would be spending at the level year over that a four-year period of time. here's what it means for next year. if we were to pass the grow america act now rather than kicking the can down the road, beginning in october 1 of this year, 2014, we would have $7.6 billion to fix our highway system. we would have 6.8 billion to improve public transportation, buses, light rate, inner city -- $3.4 billion for our rail systems which you have in the northeast corridor. out in california, the capital

corridor, the train system between san diego, los angeles and so forth and $1 billion for our freight transportation system, a total of $18.6 billion more in 2015 to fix our crumbling infrastructure. this is a very robust investment. and it covers all of these programs. and each of these programs, while necessary in and of themselves, the highway system, fill the pot holes so men and women across the country don't ave to take my pickup in for front-wheel realignment and these systems. we would be able to grow those and fix our infrastructure system. and we would put people back to work. tonchingtonching --

mr. tonko: what i like about the plan it is inclusive in terms of an umbrellas approach that encompasses several policy areas. not just transportation, which is very valid and certainly urgent, but we address environmental policy, energy policy, economic development policy, urban policy. there are a number of strategies that come together into this one initiative that allows us to be smart about our investments, to be efficient. and isn't that what people seem to call for when they go to vote each and every time for congress. people interpret the 2010 election that the voters were saying, government's the enemy, government's the problem, government's too big. people said no, we want efficient government, effective government, that's what a strategy like this provides. it incorporates planning, it

incorporates investing on a routine scale so we are not doing these catch-up games that require downpayments of interest before we get investments made in infrastructure. so i like this. but with the rail portion, we're talking about the most energy- efficient form of travel. in order for us to provide a benefit, a transportation factor is important in the household budget planning that all of us do and in budgeting for business go, so they can cut that factor and be competitive inlanding the contracts for the work that they do. so rail is an important component for that vision of providing a sounder outcome, better for the environment, less pollution as we become more energy efficient. the next is connection with

urban coerce that enable us to provide for the recovery of our inner urban coerce. we have been lacking for sound urban policy in this nation and time to have a heart for the urban coerce and put together smart growth strategy which this sort of planning and vision enables us to do and the list goes on and on. to your point, we are going to put people to work, too. that's not a bad thing. instead of coming up with dollars to sue a president, why don't we invest in our infrastructure. we are going to rush around this week and come up with ways to make certain that we can go forward with a lawsuit against the president and we are going to invest hard-earned taxpayer dollars to prove a point to stage some sort of political theater and not do the sort of priorities that the american

public is calling on us to do. they don't want this ackry moany to be driven by additional digging into the pocket of the taxpayer. they want soundness, effectiveness of programs. they want to know what we do will grow jobs, foster private sector job growth, enables our public to be more safe as we travel, enables us to put people to work. people are calling for that sort of vision and initiative and we owe it to the american public to put in a long-term strategy which we know deep in our heart is the best thing to do. mr. garamendi: representative tonko, what is happening tomorrow, the speaker and the leadership of this house is going to do a press conference about suing the president? mr. tonko: there is talk of how we will provide the dollars to make that happen.

mr. garamendi: and we haven't taken up a transportation bill, have we? mr. tonko: right. the aprovals we are looking for here ought to come from sound investments that will help generations to come and in a multiple order of effectiveness for various purposes from jobs to safety to connecting, for commerce and the like. >> let's put aside that lawsuit tomorrow and all the foolishness that it is and at least let us, you and i and whoever cares to join in this to talk about substantive issues that the american people really want, which is us to do our work and put together programs that actually meet the needs of the people. this is the president's proposal and i know the president has said if it has his name on it, it isn't going anywhere. take his name off of it and call

it an american act. what is it? it's a four-year program, four years of transportation, infrastructure funding, as you said, it includes many different elements including planning, research, as you just described. it's $302 billion over the four years which is a substantial increase of what we are presently doing. it is fully paid for. does not increase the deficit. in fact, i love my charts, i just hope the rest of you like them but if you don't, i'm going to show them any way. what happens when we invest a dollar in infrastructure, we actually go the economy by $1.57. for every dollar we invest, we get economic growth. we increase the economy, in this case by another 57 cents beyond the dollar we have already spent and you are laying in place the

foundation, you made the capital investment that will endure for years to come. this grow america act, this is just one year, but in four years, it's $302 billion over the four-year period. it has for transportation a highway system, $199 billion. that's a 22% increase over what we're currently spending in the area of transit systems, $72 billion over the four-year period. that also is an increase. there's research, which we've talked about. the multi modal. you talked about the transit hubs and that's an important piece but the multimodal freight system. it's the ports, the trains and the highways all coming together. i know you have major projects

in new york and you may want to talk about those, but these are the hubs for which our economy grows, because it's the export as well as the import from overseas, it's the rail system that then takes those containers and that cargo and puts it on the rails to go across the country whether it's u.p. on the west coast and the trucks and they all come together in a hub. so there's actually $10 billion for the raill hubs system itself, it's $19 billion over the four years and then there's a special program, innovative programs that local governments want to do and these are tiger grants. so it's a substantial growth in what we have been send spending over the previous years and you remember the chart that shows a

decline in spending. we need to pick it up and push it forward at a higher level, employing people, growing the economy in the process and laying down the foundation, the concrete, the steel, the bridges, the rails upon which the economy will grow. i know you have examples of this, mr. tonko. mr. tonko: as we delay wearks do these kicking the can down the road scenarios, there are projects lining up, building up. we're not resolving the overall core of concern out there. and so in a way, projects are piling up in new york, the american society of civil engineers has given this country as you stated earlier a poor report card on our infrastructure. mr. garamendi: are you, like california work d ratings?

mr. tonko: yes, we have some tough, tough issues to deal with and this report card from professionals is telling the story as it is. today, nearly 13% of new york's bridges are deemed structurally deficient. some 27% of the state's bridges are considered functionally obsolete. now that's piling up. it's not going to get better until we invest. so as it piles up, these concerns, or these benefits from this investment, are not being shared with the country. now people don't want to hear about climate change and global warming, but at least see it as a way to be more resourceful with the energy supplies we do have. if you can't buy into the notion of cleaning up the air to avoid methane emission and carbon emission, see it as a way to pull car office the highway and allow for mass transit, public transit, to enable us to better address the capacity situation of our roads

and bridges throughout all of our states. and then see it as a way to bring under control the transportation cost factor for commerce. when you build this port system, when you connect with rail and highways and bridges, and you have the ultimate investment made in today's state of the art infrastructure, you're providing this golden benefit to commerce so that they can compete and compete effectively in a global marketplace. it's driven by commerce, as is our public safety, as is our connectedness as a nation. so there are many benefits here. multiple facets of all of this vision that the president has shared with this congress, should not be kicked aside. you don't kick this away like you did the strategies and the solutions for our infrastructure needs but you sit down at a table, together, and perform as this nation expects us to on behalf of

issues as critical as infrastructure. we know what has to be done. let's do it. let's be the professionals as we come together in a bipartisan fashion, bicameral fashion, the legislative branch working with the executive branch and getting it done. we've been inspired throughout our history with those concepts of the erie canal, the transcontinental railroad, the interstate highway system. here's our moment. do we let it pass us by or do we let it move us forward and et it done in grand fashion. we need to have state of the art port facilities to ship our goods. we need to give commerce the muscle it needs, the american way. our grandparents knew about this. they handed us this. this? re we going with

will we fail the next generations or will they look at us stay and say, they got it they did it well, they did it with a sense of vision and planning and passion and commitment and scored for us as a generation. and now we'll build on that success. mr. garamendi: yes, we can. we can do it. it's interesting that -- we spend a lot of time talking on the floor here and in the chamber about government regulation and red tape, in the grow america act, there are major reforms to speed up projects, to move projects faster, to get the concrete poured, to get the bridge built, to get the airport up and running. those reforms are very, very important, they along with the overall bill are languishing for lack of a hearing, for lack of action.

we had the opportunity to put e projects in place with the reforms called for in the grow america act. this is an opportunity for our local county, city, state, to put forward innovative projects, for example, the systems you were talking about the transit hubs, those can be proposed, graded based on their tility, on their usefulness, on -- those are then grant programs, public, local, state, it's a substantial increase. i know those are popular in california. we keep lining them up, but there hasn't been sufficient money in the grow america act, there's a significant increase from $5 billion available for these innovative transportation projects. so we really -- what is there not to like in this? it's fully paid for.

ully paid for in two ways, the existing excise tax on gasoline and diesel and the balance that is the increase is to be paid for by closing tax loopholes on corporations. it's interesting that today, as the president was talking about this, and also talking about , sing tax loopholes corporations are offshoring american jobs. "the wall street journal," a famous and quite good newspaper carried on its front page "the race to cut taxes finds the urge to merge." cute headline. and in the new york times, another headline on -- in the "new york times," another headline on the same subject, " drug firms make haste to elude

taxes." here in these two national newspapers are examples of the -- of games, tax avade avoidance games being played by american corporations to avoid paying their fair share of the american taxes and the president in the grow america act said stop it. tax these kinds of loopholes, tax breaks. to avoid paying their share of the burden of transportation. he wants to close these loopholes, and here are two that ought to be closed immediately. mr. tonko: when you look at that strategy, you sense the fundamental fairness, i look at projects like the efforts in new york, where governor quo moe was leading the effort to

make sure we invest in the rebuilding of the bridge that takes traffic from the greater new york metro area and moves it along into upstate new york and into the northeast area of our country, a major for row fare, with a huge price tag. if we partner with our states, that is helping those ndividual states to to endure. otherwise it falls upon the local taxpayer and on state income taxes and whatever the state revenue supplies are, so there's a partnership that's strengthened when the federal government leads with a strong commitment to infrastructure improvement.

it was in need of improvement for quite some time and i applaud the government for leading the effort now and putting it together. again the federal partnership here is important. for us to continue to ask middle income america to pay the bill, they're already saturated with these efforts, they know they've been stressed out. what this measure does is provide fundamental fairness, it's not just about the projects done, the implementation of a plan. it's about a revenue side that comes together in progressive fashion in social and economically just fashion to make certain that that there is an equal sense of responsibility to bear in terms of providing for the infrastructure improvements that we as a nation, as an american society requires. so let's go forward and be the

bold pioneers of this generation and show people that we didn't miss the opportunity to invest in america. this nation, as great as she is, this economy as strong as she can be, requires assistance through our wonderful history and this is not a surprise. it should not be a surprise. we need to constantly upgrade and improve and maintain our infrastructure. we spent a lot of time representative garamendi talking about projects and initiatives that move us forward. but there's also a commitment that needs to be made to operational costs of these systems. if we don't commit to that, sooner or later it catches up with us, and then there's requirements for bond acts or various ways to come up with strategies and when you come into moments like this, you'll have resistance from certain

thinking, philosophical approaches in government and it makes the job all the more difficult. we know what needs to be done. we've been bolstered by our rich history, we were at our best when we invested in america, let's learn from that, let's seize the moment, let's go forward and commit to commerce, to safety, to the yen public, and the needs of the general public and let's provide for that strength of america. that pioneer spirit that has -- that has always driven us. i know i've talked about this so many times when i've been with you on the floor but the pioneer spirit was on display when we built the erie canal, it was on display when the manufacturing towns built their factories, it was on display when so many of our ancestors, as immigrants, came here, deathered their american dream, climbed that economic ladder they ascended those opportunities to provide for their family, for their children and grandchildren to go forward. that's us. that's us. that's the synergy of this

nation. that's the passion of the american public. and we deny that when we deny the vision, the plan, the investment, the policy, the initiative driven right on this floor. that ought to be bipartisan nature. make no mistake about it, bipartisan in nature. so let's move forward, let's have that plan, let's have that vision and let's commit to this future. mr. garamendi: we can do it, we ought to do it, our predecessors have done it, there are 435 of us here in the house of representatives and the question is, are we willing with to -- willing to do it? it can be done this plan, grow america, is fully paid for. some corporations that are skipping out on their taxes would have to participate and they should. they ought not be tax dodgers. there's an interesting plan put forward by representative delaney of maryland that would take those profits that are -- that these corporations have

stored overseas, taxes that they've -- profited they've not paid taxes on in america, to repatriate, to bring that money back to america, his program would generate over a period of 10 years $720 billion to be used in public-preist partnerships to build our infrastructure. there are many, many ideas about how this could be paid for, the president has laid out a plan, not to raise the gasoline and the diesel tax but rather to bring about some tax fairness, corporations would be required to pay their fair share. i suspect we have maybe another five minutes or so but i want to bring up one of our favorite subjects. i'm going to put this up, here we are with the grow america act, all the things that could be done. this is back to make it in america. i love this photo. it's one of my favorites. i know often you travel on the

train from new york down to washington, d.c. or back, right about now. this locomotive, the most advanced electric locomotive in america, made in america, was paid for by a make it in america strategy. part of the transportation program, the american recovery act, back in 2008, said that, they put aside $700-plus billion for amtrak all across the nation to be used for improving the amtrak system. and they said that that money would be used to build locomotives and they said 100% american made. 100% american made system of siemens, a german company, said $700 billion, locomotives made in america, we're a german company, we can build those in america.

in sacramento, california, in he infrastructure program, siemens, has built 100% american made locomotive and it's going to be operating very soon on the northeast corridor. this is a good thing. this is how we can rebuild the american middle class. this is how we can create jobs, using our infrastructure investments to build jobs in america. it is a fundamental piece of our make it in america strategy, of rebuilding our manufacturing sector where you do have good, solid, middle class jobs, where a family can earn a living without both husband and wife having to work all the time, maybe two or three jobs. we're talking about the american dream, being restored and the infrastructure is a fundamental piece of that. not just because it moves the economy, not just because it's foundational to economic growth, but because it is