make whatever remarks he cares to. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. woodall: thank you very much, madam speaker. i thank my friend from oklahoma for yielding me the time. the rules committee has a tough job and it's interesting to hear folks down here talking about both their agreement on tax reform and deficits and their agreement about what a rule ought to look like. i've kind of gotten a little bit of both of their passion with me today, madam speaker, because ways and means bills do have to come to the floor under a closed rule. you know, the way the rules work, if you have an open rule and anything that's relevant to the underlying bill you can discuss. so when you bring a tax bill to the floor, suddenly the entire tax code becomes available for amendment and you can imagine what a brouhaha that would be. i would enjoy that debate. i'd thoroughly enjoy that debate but it would never, ever end. in the so with our spending bills. when our spending bills come to the floor they come under a completely open process so we can examine the underlying

spending. just to take folks through the rules committee process a little bit, madam speaker, what waived the s we cut-go provision in the rules. a lot of focus groups going on around the chamber right now about how we should change the rules to make the system work better. sometimes the rules committee, we end up waiving some of the rules to make the system work better. some folks thinks it works better and some worse. we ought to have that conversation as a body. we had to waive cut-go in this rule, madam speaker. it increases mandatory spending. . i have a bill beside me, i think it was the gentleman from colorado who made this point. we voted on the leg branch appropriation bill this year, it was a $3 billion spending bill, eight amendments on the floor of the house, it passed. we voted on the financial services spending bill, it was a $21 billion bill, we had 51 amendments on that bill, we passed it out of the house. we voted on the energy and water spending bill, a $34 billion

spending bill, 78 amendments we had on the floor. we voted on the commerce, justice, science bill, $51 billion bill, 84 amendments on the floor of this house. it goes on, transportation, $52 billion, 68 amendments. military construction, veterans' affairs, $71 billion, 24 amendments. it brings us to one of the underlying bills today, a bill i think touches the heart of absolutely every man and woman in this chamber, our constituents back home trying to help our children access the higher education services that they need but in this case is going to increase mandatory , more g by $73 billion than any of the appropriation bills we have passed this year except for our defense department appropriation bill. and it's not going to be able to allow a single amendment on the floor of the house. that's just the process. that's the process that we have when we are dealing with facts. my question for my colleagues is

, does mandatory spending deserve additional scrutiny? the kind of scrutiny we give to appropriated spending, to discretionary spending? i will tell you that it does. i'm so proud of what this house does on discretionary spending. my friend from oklahoma happens to be an appropriator. he's an appropriations cardinal which means he has leadership responsibilities. this committee, rules committee, and my friend from colorado recognizes this, comes to the rules committee and they ask for an open rule every single time. they say we have done the best we can do to give the house our proudest work, but if anybody else has ideas about how to improve it, come to us. we want this to be a collaborative product. we can't do that with this bill that we have before us today. and it increases mandatory spending by $73.7 billion. i cannot count the number of times i have heard my colleagues in this body say, it's not the appropriations spending that's the problem, it's the mandatory spending that's the problem. we are moving awfully fast in the body this week to

appropriate $73.7 billion in new mandatory spending. i know people's hearts and heads are with these young people that we are trying to help get ahead, we are trying to help access higher education, but there's only one place we are going to find this $73.7 billion, and that's in the pocketbooks of those very same young men and women when we borrow this money today to spend it on them and ask them to pay it back with interest in the future. i caution my colleagues today, spending is a constitutional responsibility that we have. it's a constitutional responsibility we place in the appropriations committee where things are scrutinized line by line by line. never before this year has so much money gone out the door, so little amount of time, with so little input, very capable members on both sides of this aisle. with that, again, i encourage my

colleagues read this rule, you'll support this rule, but exam -- examine the underlying legislation carefully. with that i thank the speaker, thank my fellow member of the rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves the time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from georgia. i'm trying to take all this in. i certainly agree with his premise that we need to talk about mandatory spending. i think that there is a bipartisan desire to do that. and several years ago there was thoughtful it bowles-simpson proposal that began to take on some of those issues. i think it's a discussion that particularly when nondiscretionary spending is the vast majority of federal spending, you can only do so much on the discretionary side. it's very important to do that. clearly all of these tax extenders and tax expenditures and mandatory spending through outlays and social security and

medicare that is what that discussion is about. it's a very important one. this bill is yet another one that kicks the ball down the road. doesn't deal with any of those issues. and doesn't allow any consideration of those issues. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we'll offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the house to consider to bring jobs home act. this bill creates a new tax credit to provide u.s. incentive for u.s. companies to move jobs overseas and back to america and end the -- instead of considering two tax bills that hurt american families, let's consider one that brings american jobs home. to discuss our proposal i yield four minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker, and two managers, three good men. i rise in opposition to the rule. i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can offer an amendment to consider my legislation, h.r. 851, bring jobs home act.

yesterday it passed in the senate, 93-7. there is something fundamentally wrong if we can't get a boost for sureit passes 93.7 across-the-board democrats and republicans. what are we talking about here? and i vote for the previous question is a -- an aye vote for the previous question is vote for keep giving corporate america a tax break for every job they ship overseas to china. let's start there. i heard a lot about corporate welfare in reference to the export-import bank over the last few weeks before we debate it next week. it costs the government not one dime. to help out the businesses. in fact, in your state the manager through the chair, your state has in jeopardy in oklahoma, 255,000 jobs at risk.

bring jobs home act ends taxpayer write-offs that pay moving costs when companies ship jobs abroad. we as a body have supported in the past giving money to businesses and corporations that send jobs overseas. that does not make sense. what we want to do is help those companies to come back, because these are good-paying jobs. that's how manufacturing jobs primarily left this country. over the last 10 years, 2.4 million american jobs have been shipped overseas and u.s. taxpayers have helped foot the bill. hat to me is insanity. economists estimate that across the country over 21 million jobs are at risk of being outsourced.

500,000 of them come from my home state, will come from my state of new jersey. at a time when we are trying to create good-paying manufacturing jobs in the united states, it quite simply makes no sense for the u.s. taxpayers to help foot the bill for companies that want to outsource jobs instead. my bill ends this taxpayer subsidy once and for all. instead, bring jobs home act will provide a new 20% tax credit for companies that bring jobs back to the united states of america. this will provide a substantial incentive for more and more companies to create jobs and invest right here in our own country. we are trending towards insourcing, manufacturing employment is up by 600,000 jobs since the end of the great recession. for the first time in 2013, companies were reshoring jobs at the same rate that they were offshoring them.

we still got a big hole to dig ourselves out of from 2003. went up to 150,000 jobs are being offshored each month. we are still out of balance by a million jobs. companies like caterpillar, ford, g.e., wal-mart, even, not one of my favorites, but wal-mart are starting to see the value in bringing manufacturing back to this country. we got the infrastructure, the educated work force, and we've got the consumers. again we have the most productive workers in the world. it's not just the big guys. more than 80% of companies bringing work back have 200 million or less in sales. let's give these companies a little extra incentive. to make it in america by providing them with this tax credit to help our manufacturing economy continue its rebound. a robust manufacturing-based economy will lead -- >> i yield an additional 30

seconds. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. will lead to widespread prosperity for businesses and the people who work there. anufacturing jobs pay 23% more than workers in other parts of the economy. every dollar in manufacturing sales creates $1.40 worth of economic impact. mr. speaker, it's time to stop the shortsighted policies that stifle investment here in america. d focus on what we can do to incentivize in job creation. i urge a no vote on the previous question. i yield back. i thank you for your time, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. we've opened quite a range of things to talk about with mr. woodall's remarks and mr. polis' response, and my good friend mr.

pascrell's proposal. let me take some of them up in order. my friend, who i know is sincere from colorado, talked a little bit about the need to reform entitlements. i couldn't agree with him more. that's a discussion i think we really seriously need to engage in as a body. i would invite my friend if he has an opportunity to look at a bipartisan bill that mr. delaney from his side and i have on social security reform. it doesn't really deal with a lot of reform, but it's a process bill. it would set us down the road to have a bipartisan proposal, which i can assure you would have things that your side doesn't like and things that my side doesn't like. then we would have to vote on it up or down. a thoughtful way to try and begin to deal with some of these and genuinely bipartisan. i hope my friend would look at that. in terms of my friend from new jersey mentioned the ex-im bank, couldn't agree with you more. support t i have consistently supported it. i know there is a disagreement

on our side of the aisle largely about that. i hope that it's resolved in regular order. that is that the committee votes on it and it comes down to the floor. when that happens i look forward to working with my friend to enact that legislation. i am intrigued by what my friend from new jersey had to say about the tax proposal because i think at the minimum he has certainly put his finger on an important problem. a real loophole we ought to consider. i don't consider myself an expert on tax legislation. unlike my friend in the chair, i am an and appropriator. that's the world i know. i would hope that my friend's proposal will get appropriate consideration in our ways and means body and move to regular order. i think this is an area that we can cooperate on. frankly we've got some bipartisan proposal in terms of stranded profits overseas that i think both sides could work together on and bring some investment back to our shore. the do have to defend

process whereby we move legislation as it needs to come through the appropriate committee, be duel considered, and reached here. again while i may oppose the process by which my friend is moving, i'm not at all prepared to say i propose this product. i simply haven't had a chance to look at it. i think he's addressing an important issue. the last area i do happen to disagree with my friend on a little bit, i do like wal-mart. i'm a shopper at wal-mart and i'm a stockholder at wal-mart. i think they are a great american company, but we live in a great contry. my friend can shop where he chooses and i can shop where i choose and we'll get down the road. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i don't have a wal-mart near where i live, so i don't have that same choice. i thank the gentleman for his remarks. the frustration is we are open to any process of bringing forward the ideas that mr. pascrell brought to the floor

and presenting them in context. there is a growing frustration on a number of issues whether it's extending unemployment, whether it's how we are paying for these tax cuts. we want to avail ourselves of every procedural opportunity for this house to consider the items that matter to the american people. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. enyart. mr. enyart: mr. speaker, today i rise for american jobs and good government. i rise to support the bring jobs home act. our current corporate tax law is broken. today, companies that move american jobs overseas are able to take tax deductions for relocating jobs outside the united states. let me say that again. companies located here in the united states are able to take

tax deductions for moving american jobs overseas. don't we have that backwards? shouldn't we give tax deductions to those moving jobs back home, back to america? the bring jobs home act will provide for not only an end to company rewards for shipping jobs overseas, it will also provide companies an incentive to restore jobs in america. right in my home state of illinois, over 690,000 jobs are at risk of being sent overseas. at a time when we're desperately trying to grow the job market in our country, we simply cannot in good conscience let the american taxpayer foot the moving bill for megacorporations. when i was a young man, i worked the assembly line at caterpillar, just like my father did. we put in a hard day's work for

an honest day's pay and caterpillar understood the importance of keeping jobs here in america. in the last few years, caterpillar has been bringing jobs back to the u.s., back to my home state of illinois just like g.e. and ford have. let's give them the incentive they deserve for doing the right thing. join me in supporting this bill so we can bring jobs home. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: again, i want to point out, mr. speaker, i frankly have no objection to my friends using the process to bring these ideas up for debate and discussion. i actually think that's helpful and that moves the process forward. i applaud them for that. and i don't disagree necessarily with what they're talking about in terms of tax deductions for jobs that are

exported as opposed to jobs that could be imported. i think that's something we ought to consider. but it's not the subject of the legislation that's in front of us today. that -- those are, one, what can we do to modernize the tax code and give students permanent certainty in terms of tax deductions available to educate themselves and give their families the ability to deal a little bit with the mounting cost of college, that's a good idea. and what can we do to make sure that the marriage penalty disappears and that we can target appropriate tax relief to families with children at least up to certain level of income. i believe $150,000, give them a little break with the cost of raising children. those to me are modest steps, but they're important programs because they affect the daily lives of american workers. i'm not suggesting that what my friends are proposing doesn't do the same thing. i just think this vehicle we

probably ought to work within the bounds of what ways and means have sent us. will say i sense some of my friends' frustration in terms of moving legislation. you know, we got 321 bills sitting in the united states senate that haven't been acted upon that this house has sent over there. i know a lot about being shut out. i think if our friends on the other side of the aisle in the other chamber were here, they would say they had fewer amendments this year than democrats have gotten on any appropriations bill that we brought forward. we don't have a broken congress. we got a broken united states senate, in my view. but having said that, we got a chaps, i think, to take a -- we got a chance, i think, to take a step in the right direction. to position this chamber to sit down at a later point and negotiate with our friends, republicans and democrat alike, in the other chamber and

perhaps produce toward the end of this year some good and permanent changes in the tax code that if an agreement is reached i suspect we could have overwhelming bipartisan support for. so we are just at that point in the process where we need to develop and put forth our proposals. we hope our counterparts in the united states senate do the same thing and that we can sit down and, again, find common ground in between. we've done that on some occasions before. if we'll just operate the way our procedures are set up, i'm confident we can do it again. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. that's exciting, a message from the president of the united states. that doesn't happen every day here.

i'm prepared to close. i'd like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers. mr. cole: i'm prepared to close if my friend is. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: thank you. this rule and this bill here before us today are yet another symbolic bill. when this house only has another week in session before september, we're passing a bill that doesn't move here, there on the actual renewal of these tax credits. doesn't deal with the deficit or entitlement spending. doesn't deal with immigration reform. it's a bill to resumeably show the public that republicans care about this particular tax credit, as do, of course, democrats but there's no real effort to figure out how we're going to pay for it. i mean, we'd love to cut every tax. why not cut every tax down to zero, not tax anybody, but where's the money coming from? same as this. it's a feel-good, meaningless

gesture. frankly, i think the american people see through which is why this body's approval rating hovers around 12%. the bill makes in order the child tax credit improvement. costs $150 billion over 10 years. osts each taxpayer $2,600. a significant cost imposing on the american people, there are substantive concerns. while it would give some families a tax break, it harms women and children. e.c.t. helps low-income families lift themselves out of poverty. it indexes the current maximum credit of $1,000 to inflakes. further, the bill extends the child tax credit, up the income scale on a permanent basis allowing those who earn six figures to benefit. on the same day that paul ryan

is unveiling the anti-poverty plan, this bill would push 12 million more people, including six million children into poverty. unfortunately, there's been a provision added to this bill at the rules committee that would bar children who are american citizens but of immigrant parents from receiving a tax credit. this bill includes a provision that only allows the tax credit to be claimed if the taxpayer has a social security number even if they're claiming the credit for children who have a social security number and are full american citizens. this impact is huge, would deny 5.5 million poor american children from being able to receive this tax credit. deny millions of u.s. citizens much-needed assistance for being able to afford their rent, clothing and food just because who their parents are. that's not right. that's no just. it's no wonder groups that care -- that's not just. it's no wonder that groups that campaign for children, children's defense fund, national immigration law center

and the national council of la raza have come out in strong opposition to this bill. mr. speaker, it would be disgraceful if the only votes on immigration this year would be to roll back benefits for u.s. citizens who happen to have parents who violated our law. with one week left before the august recess, republicans unfortunately have little time to introduce and pass a bill that actually deals with immigration and addresses the crisis at our border. president obama sent a request to congress to address the increased flow of families and unaccompanied minors from el lvador, honduras and guatemala. going to mcallen, texas, san antonio, are fleeing horrific situations including gangs, rape, poverty and are seeking refuge in this great country just like my own great grandparents did as well as many of my colleagues. this problem with the crisis at the southern border is one of only so many symptoms about our

dysfunctional immigration system which is why congress needs to bring forward h.r. 15 bill for a vote and allow that proceed to the president and president obama's desk to resolve this crisis. it's unconscionable to think that the only immigration-related legislation that the house actually may pass in the 113th congress could be one named at cutting off benefits to american children or deporting children. we continue to fail to move any immigration reform bill to the floor this entire congress. this body's already had the opportunity to act on legislation that passed the senate by a bipartisan vote of more than 2/3 and that the president would sign. h.r. 15 are house bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill which i am a proco-sponsor which would create american jobs, lower the deficit, reflect our values as americans, unite families, secure our border and restore some sense of normalcy and law to the chaos that now surround our immigration system. the american people overwhelmingly support

immigration reform but unfortunately house republicans continue to allow a vote on reform and have failed to bring forward a bill to address the dire humanitarian crisis at our border. and here in this bill -- we have another bill to cut off benefits to american kids just because who their parents are. i cannot support this closed rule and these underlying bills. it will add to our deficit. they fail to address some of the most critical issues of our time. and they have significant policy flaws that make these particular programs worse for some of our american families hat need the credits the most. i have something i'm supposed to say here but i can't find it. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. -- entleman from colorado excuse me -- oklahoma. mr. cole: i don't know who is more offended, mr. polis or me,

but i'd be proud to live in the same state as my friend. i prefer it in oklahoma, though. let me address a number of remarks my friend made in passing, but let me begin by reminding anybody who happens to be listening or following debate this isn't an immigration bill. this is actually a tax bill and it's really about trying to make some things that have had bipartisan support permanent. we all agree that we need to insofar as we can help people that are educating themselves or members of their family and provide appropriate tax relief. that's what this bill does. it's simply that simple. number two, we all think that you shouldn't have a tax penalty for being married, and if we can do things to help you with the cost of raising a family, we ought to try and do those things because it's been tough. that's what this bill does. we can disagree with the merits, but i think the general thrust is something we broadly

agree on. and making those items permanent within the tax code is important so people can actually get used to using the benefits, understand them, sort of internalize them and make them permanent and predictable for families. and that's -- that's our goal with this legislation. finally, we would like to get eventually to a conference with our friends in the senate who i suspect would share some of my friend from colorado's concerns that might be in their legislation, as you knows the process works, we'll sit down at that point, see if we can find common ground. if the two negotiating teams can, then i suspect we'll come back with something a great number of us on both sides of the aisle can support. but what my friend and mr. camp, the chairman of the ways and means, is trying to do is actually make permanent some very good bipartisan ideas that i think we can agree on. now, my friend also mentioned

the deficit. i appreciate that. i genuinely do. i recognize this is a work in progress, not a final product. but i will point out again for the record. when my friends were in the majority, the deficit got worse every single year. i'll yield in a minute. mr. polis: thank you. mr. cole: it's gotten lower every single year since then. so i think we're serious about dealing with the deficit. and i would invite my friend -- i know he is seriously engaged in this. let's find some areas on the part of the budget that needs addressing, the entitlement area, that we can find common ground. mr. polis: i'd note it takes both parties working together to dig the country into this much debt. happy to yield back. mr. cole: thank you very much. i think. i do want to disagree with my friend on a couple points. number one, this isn't a symbolic piece of legislation. it is legislation in progress,

but it's not feel-good. i know mr. camp and his committee are anxious to actually change many aspects of the tax code. i know he wants to make at least some of these things permanent. we may work -- we may succeed or we may not, but it's certainly not meant to be anything other than serious. . two issues that i regard as somewhat distinct. we do have a border crisis. i suspect legislation to deal with that. there's a difference in philosophy. i think the administration just want the sources to manage it. i think we would like to change some of the root causes and address it and hopefully stop the massive flow, and all the human tragedy that goes with it. there's a huge debate as to what do we do with unaccompanied juveniles or minors who arrive.

that's an important debate to have. we ought to stop and think if there's something that we are doing that's encouraging that flow. because believe me, everything coming out of this is bad. it disrupts the societies from which these people are coming. we are treating children from mexico different than we are treating them from guatemala. we've got people now pouring money into criminal cartels and strengthening them. finally, the children themselves, juveniles themselves, are confronted with 1,000-mile long journey. whether they break the laws not just the united states but mexico, and they are at great risk. they are traveling with criminals. there's a lot of abuse. some of them are undoubtedly forced into sex trafficking. others perhaps to drug trade. plenty of opportunities for abuse. nobody should want that to happen. i know we are going to try and offer some serious proposals. i'm very pleased with my

colleague on the appropriations committee, the gentlelady from texas, kay granger, who has put together a working group. i think some very thoughtful proposals. i think we have tried to scrub them on the appropriations committee. so hopefully, hopefully we'll be able to address that issue. finally, let me just end with this in closing. i believe it's important, mr. speaker, to continue the deliberative approach towards fundamental tax reform. the child tax credit has existed since 1997. and the reforms contemplated in this legislation are important. in addition, consolidation of four separate education credits into one simplified credit will result in much less taxpayer confusion. i would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i ask the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on --s vote the yeas are 191

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226, the nays are 191. a majority voting in the affirmative, the previous question is ordered. the previous question is -- question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis:en that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226, the nays are 18 .

-- 188. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226, the nays are 189. the resolution is adopted.

without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to house resolution 677 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 4984. will the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, kindly ake the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 4984 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the loan counseling requirements under the higher education act of 1965 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 113-546 offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. eters, had been disposed of. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report

113-546 by the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes have prevailed on voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 2 print fld part b of house report 113-546 offered by mr. kilmer of washington. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] fdic [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the eas are 399 --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 403. the nays are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 404. the nays are 14. the amendment is adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. according to the rule, 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 has had under consideration h.r. 4984 and pursuant to house resolution 677 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 4986 and pursuant to house resolution 677 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the loan counseling requirements under the higher education act of 1965, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its present form.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk: mr. tierney of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4986 to the committee on education and the work force with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, page 16, line 2, strike and at the end. page 16, line 7, strike the period, closed quotation marks and semicolon at the end and insert semicolon and. page 16, after line 7 insert the following -- 15, information on the anticipated -- ly payment amendment made to the loan under at a minimum a standard repayment plan as such finance finance so applicable rate of interest on the loan is 2% lower than the applicable rate of interest on the loan as determined under section 455-b-8.

the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. the house will be in order. members, cease conversations. ake seats. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. this is the final amendment to the bill. it won't kill the bill. it will not send it back to committee. if this amendment is adopted, the bill will immediately be proceeding to final passage, as amended. mr. speaker, there are five

legislative days remaining until this house recesses for the august district work period. it's unacceptable that the house would do that recess without taking meaningful action on one of the most important issues confronting students and parents and middle-class families in my district of massachusetts and throughout the country, student loan debt. throughout this week i offered amendments and motions that provide student loan borrowers the opportunity to refinance their existing high interest loans at lower rate. much like homeowners and businesses are often able to do. it would help them save thousands of dollars over the life of their loans. it would serve as an automatic stimulus to our economy as the savings generated from the refinance loans would increase students discretionary funds that would likely be reinvested and spent in local businesses. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman from massachusetts.

mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. in addition to saving thousands of loans -- on the life of the loans -- save thousands of dollars in the life of the loans, it will serve as a stimulus and reduce the deficit and it would enable tens of millions of americans to pursue their goals and move forward with their lives. i continue to hear from those i represent with their personal stories, they tell me what a priority student loan refinancing is for them and their families. a woman from reding massachusetts said, my husband and i already struggling to make ends meet scrape to get my loans current but the payments are almost too much to bear. with the income staying flat it's becoming more and more difficult to provide for our family, let alone pay back the loans at exorbitant rates. being able to refinance them would be a god sent for me and my family, closed quote. another person said, quote, i'm not looking for a magic solution to make my loans disappear.

it was my decision to take them out and it's my responsibility to repay them. but lowering my interest rates would lower my monthly payments. i could breathe a little easier whenever my 9-year-old car makes a funny noise, nothing there is a little bit of a cushion in approximate my bank account and get my wisdom teeth out so i can afford to east and start to think maybe having a child is possible for me after all, closed quote. mr. speaker, these women are our customers and this house should be in the business of serving their interest. unfortunately, our republican colleagues have denied or defeated all of our efforts to allow for student loan refinancing. mr. speaker, we're not deterred and we won't give up. we're here again today fighting for students and their families. the motion i'm offering today simply requires that students know what they would owe if they were permitted to refinance their loans, just like consumers refinance their mortgages right now. let's be clear, voting against this motion is a vote to hide from students the benefits

refinancing would afford. let's give them the information , the letters i mentioned, support student loan refinancing. i believe they do, mr. speaker, and i believe if this would have a majority in favor. i urge support for the motion. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. kline: mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition to the gentleman's motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. this proposal for a hypothetical refinancing interest rate would make financial understanding even more confusing. we've been working on a process here to make it easier for students and parents to understand their loans and grants and work study programs. this would not be helpful. this motion, like all motions to recommit, affords the minority an opportunity to speak for five minutes to try

to make political points before a procedural vote. that's done. let's take the vote. vote no on this and yes on the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. tierney: ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and suspending the bills and passing h.r. 5111. this is a five-minute vote on he motion to recommit. -- suspending the rules and passing h.r. 5111.

this is a five-minute vote on the motion to recommit. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 193, the nays are 220. the motion is not adopted. the question is on pass and of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 404, the nays are 11.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 405, the nays are 11. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. he house will be in order. embers, please take seats.

pursuant to the chair's announcement of earlier today, the house will now observe a moment of silence in memory of officer jacob j. chestnut and detective john m. gibson will all present please rise for a moment of silence. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i think it appropriate that one of us ise to recognize the sacrifice

made by detective gibson and officer chestnut. detective gibson was in the office of tom delay, officer chestnut was at the memorial door. allowing visitors to come in. he was shot in the back of the head. detective gibson in trying to protect not only then majority leader delay, but also other members of the staff and of the public did what we expect -- public, did what we expect them to do and they paid for that with their lives. all of us i know express our deep gratitude to the members of the capitol police force. who every day get out of bed, strap on a gun, put a badge to their chest or in their wallet or on their person and come to

this capitol to defend not only the members and the staff but the millions of people who come to visit the capitol of the united states regularly. they allow us to have confidence that we can do the people's business in safety and security. so not only is it appropriate, mr. speaker, that we pay tribute to detective gibson and officer chestnut, but also to give thanks to those who serve daily that this capitol might operate on behalf of the american people. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute oting will continue.

the gentleman from washington. >> i request unanimous consent to speak out of turn for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i appreciate the words of mr. hoyer. mr. reichert: as most of you , my in this chamber previous career was in law enforcement. 33 years. and there are some members in here who have served their community as a police officer. in my experience in 33 years, i felt the pain of the loss of a partner and a best friend. i felt the pain of a loss of a neighbor and a very food friend nd an academy graduate friend. as the sheriff, i lost officers during my term, eight years as a sheriff in seattle.

and i appreciate the time that we take today to honor those that have died to protect members of this body and recognize all of those law enforcement officers across the country, across the world for that matter, sir, who are protecting us each and every day. but i think one of the most important things we can do, ladies and gentlemen, is not only remember them and their service, but remember their families. , ir families lost a husband ey lost a father, a brother, an uncle, a grandpa. this is real life and death stuff that these folks face every day. yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i just wanted to add my comments for those who were there that tragic day. ms. kaptur: the perpetrator of that horrendous act was a schizophrenic, not on his medicine and drove 3/4 across this country to commit those heinous crimes. before this house today is two bills, one authored by tim murphy and another authored by a democrat, ron barber. all these years have passed and we have never yet brought to this floor a measure that would make a difference in this country for those who suffer with mental illness and some of whom unfortunately obtain

weapons. i believe we have a moment in this house to do something exceptional, and i hope it can happen in this congress. mr. speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5111 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5111, a bill to improve the response to victims of child sex trafficking. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 403. e nays are -- the yeas are 407 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 409. the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, seek recognition? mr. camp: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 680, i call up the bill h.r. 3393, the student and family tax simplification act and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 392, h.r. 3393, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to consolidate certain tax benefits for educational expenses and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 680, the amendment in the nature of a substitute

recommended bit committee on ways and means printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in house report 113-552 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 3393. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: and mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: would members and guests in the back of the gallery cease conversations? the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, today more and more americans are pursuing a dream of earning a college degree, but for many realizing that dream is getting more difficult. tuition prices continue to climb, making it harder for americans to plan for and

afford a higher education. worse yet, our broken tax code makes it harder than ever to pay for it. currently, there are 15 complicated and at times overlapping jokse provisions that include over 90 pages of -- education provisions that include over 90 pages of i.r.s. instructions. families are struggling busy schedules as it is and they shouldn't have to go over 90 pages of i.r.s. explanations just to figure out how to save and pay for a college education. we need a simplification that makes it easier to qualify for tax relief and qualify for college. the families budget every year to save for their children's education. to simplify this system and help make it -- and help make a good education affordable. the bill before us, h.r. 3393, the student and family tax simplification act, would do just that. this legislation will make

paying for college easier by combining and making more efficient four tax benefits for higher education and do a new, simpler and more valuable american opportunity tax credit. and this new improved credit will provide greater benefits for those who need it most. i'm proud that this bipartisan provision is based off of years of work by the ways and means committee and in particular committee members diane black and danny davis, the co-chairs of the education and tax reform working group who worked across the aisle who helped simplify the code. i should note that the obama administration has expressed support for an approach that assumes a permanent extension of the aotc. we have a real opportunity today to work across the aisle to make life better for hardworking americans. by consolidating current american opportunity tax credit, the hope scholarship credit, the lifetime learning credit and the college tuition deduction into one simplified

aotc credit, college students can get the help they need without navigating almost 100 pages of forms. the bill would provide a permanent 100% tax credit for the first 2,000 of certain higher education expenses and a 25% tax credit for the next $2,000 of expenses. the first $1,500 of the credit is refundable, ensuring that students get the benefits regardless of tax liability. this can go a long way for students and their families, especially in these tough economic times. the american association of community colleges and the association of community college trustees who cite the aotc as the most important source of support for college students and the tax code recently voiced their support for this bill stating, and i'm quoting, the legislation achieves several important objectives for the nation's college students who continue to face substantial financing challenges even at low-cost community colleges. its simplification of the current array of current tax

credit benefits is critical given their complexity has led to widespread underutilization, end quote. additionally, this provision would allow pell grants to be used for a wider array of expenses, including room and board, without triggering tax liability. not only does this have widespread bipartisan support, but a poll found that 80% of americans support extending these policies. no one should be discouraged from pursuing continued learning, but because tuition prices continue to climb while wages continue to fall, families and students nationwide are wondering if they can even afford it. today we can do better by these hardworking americans. i encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to move this bill through the house and ask for both the senate and the administration to work with us in finding simple, commonsense solutions like these for the american people, and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll utilize such time as i now take. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. are evin: what republicans in essence trying to do here and elsewhere, if i might say so today, is to soften their image. but they can't run away from the hard reality that at every turn over the last several years, they've sought to pass laws making life more difficult for middle and low income families. on the republican chopping block, unemployment insurance blocked for three million americans. food assistance for low--- low income americans would be cut y nearly 20% in the ryan -republican budget. a minimum wage increase hasn't occurred in five years.