mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill that would add hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficit to deliver a windfall to the heirs of the wealthiest estates in the country. although the republican budget holds that we must make draconian cuts to domestic programs, in the name of physical can prudence, proms that help the middle class, infirmed, the republican leadership lauds a bill that would provide inequality in our nation and give an average tax break of $3 million to the most secure. . in my congressional district the median income is $48,481. the unemployment rate for african-americans is 24.5%. the poverty level for children is 38.3%, and the poverty rate

for the elderly is 21.4%. and over 63,000 households receive food stamps. in the state of illinois over 13000 children are homeless. at the end of last year, chicago had the highest -- fifth highest foreclosure rate in the nation. this bill is fiscally irresponsible and reflects misplaced priorities for our nation. we can make improvements to the bill to address the concerns of small businesses and family farms if current law is inadequate but wholesale repeal reflects poor leadership. the fiscal recklessness of the republican approach that balloons our deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars via tax -- dozens of tax cuts reminds me of the adage that says death by a thousand cuts

but this is debt by a thousand tax cuts. it's bad for our economy. it is bad for our citizens and it is bad for our nation. i will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves and the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i'm very proud to introduce a key member of the ways and means committee, the gentlelady from south dakota, i yield two minutes to her. mrs. noem: on march 10 1994 my dad was killed in an accident on our family farm. i was taking college classes at the time. i was 21 years old and i ended upcoming home with my family trying to figure out how we would get by without him after this tragedy hit our family. all i could hear during that point in time was the words my dad said to me for many years and it wasn't long after he was killed that we got a bill in the mail from the i.r.s. that said we owed them money because we had a tragedy happen to our family. and one of the things my dad had always said to me kristi,

don't sell land because god is not making more land. we could sell the land or take out a loan so i chose to take out a loan but it took us 10 years to pay off that loan to pay the federal government those death taxes. it's one of the main reasons why i got involved in government in politics because i didn't understand how bureaucrats and politicians in washington, d.c., could make a law that says when a tragedy hits a family they somehow are owed something from that family business and it doesn't work for a normal everyday people. and that is why this death tax is so unfair, because at one of the most vulnerable times of people's lives the federal government says we need to take what you have and what your family has worked for. you know a lot of the conversation today has been about the rich needs to pay more. the rich will avoid this tax. they have the resources to do that but it hits families like mine harder than ever. certainly are not going to pay the burden of this tax. i will also say some of the

discussion has been about the deficit. the government does not earn money. the government takes other people's money is what it does. and it's certainly not going to earn more money by this policy. this previous administration and the members of the other part here on the house floor today talk about the people who have struggled. we have more people living in poverty today under your policies than we had before you were in charge of this country. one in five children are in food stamps because of the policies of this administration. 50% of our college students can't find work or underemployed because of the policies of this administration. we talk about income inequality and we are seeing it because of those previous policies. this tax is a very unfair tax. it's double taxation. and please don't put any more families in the situation where they lose their family operation or are threatened by it because of a tragedy that happens to our family. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: madam speaker, i'm proud to follow-up and yield two minutes to another new member of the ways and means committee who understands just how fragile these family-owned farms and businesses are, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: thank you. growing up and working on my great grandfather's farm, i learned many values. one that i taught is a comparison in basically when you're out there working with the hogs you learn that there's little value in hogwash. and i would compare a lot of the facts that we've been hearing today that's opposing this legislation as equivalent to hogwash. and i say that under the stipulation that i've heard numerous facts stated of farms the size of 15,000 acres. well, the average family farm

in this country is less than 500 acres. if you look at the boot hill of missouri where i represent, every farm in that area, if you consider a 500-acre farm and the price of a 500-acre farm times that by how many acres they have -- say 500 acres times 10,000. that's $5 million. $5 million. and then you have to put the price of a combine and a tractor to harvest the rice and the cotton. guess what, they're part of that top 2% that the other side says is the wealthiest of the wealthy. well, guess what, there's less than 2% of americans are farmers. less than 2% of americans are farmers. this legislation, this tax is directly after farmers. our tax code, what is wrong with it, it is disadvantage -- disadvantaging rural america. and the death tax is part of that disadvantage.

you're seeing people leave rural america because of the tax code and this is a way to fix the tax code. when you look at family farmers 85% of their investment is in the land and in their equipment. it's not in liquid assets and when they get a tax bill like my former congresswoman that spoke from south dakota mentioned, they have to either sell their land or they have to take out a loan so they can keep their family business. this is a tax on the american dream and this is awful. the folks on the other side of the aisle have never found a tax that they disliked. folks we have to stop this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: madam speaker, i yield -- proud to yield 1 1/2

minutes to the leader of the select revenue subcommittee of the ways and means, mr. reichert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. reichert: i thank you, madam chairwoman and thank the distinguished gentleman from texas for bringing this bill to the floor and his hard work on this bill and appreciate the opportunity to speak today in support of this bill. proud to be a co-sponsor. the story is the same across this country in all of our districts, whether you heard that today from every member or not. business owners and farmers work hard for their entire lives with the goal of passing on the first fruits of their labor, but face sometimes insurmountable hurdle of the death tax. in addition to the actual tax liability, the death tax imposes merely planning for it, regardless of whether these business people and farmers end up owing it is yet another challenge. last month when i chaired the

hearing in the select revenue committee on this bill, we heard from three witnesses. a rancher, a farmer and a product distributor. their stories were the same. this is an onerous tax creating hours and hours and months of work by attorneys and by their own employees trying to figure out how they're going to keep their business in their family. and one business owner said for the first 26 years working in his family business, 26 years he spent trying to figure out how to meet the death tax. when one relative was about to pass away, they had another death tax issue they had to address. another relative is about to pass away and did pass away and again they had to address the death tax. this is a tax not on the -- this is an issue that the other side wants to make between the rich and the poor. this is about average american

men and women business owners across this country trying to keep their family-owned business, protect their hard work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the lead sponsor of repeal the death tax act an eagle scout army veteran, the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i'm pleased to join representative brady on this important bipartisan legislation to repeal the death tax once and for all. i've always believed that the death tax is misguided, morally unjustified and downright un-american. it's really a tax on success. the assets that -- what the people want to pass on to their

progeny have already been taxed. if it's a business or if it's a farm, the individuals who earned it, who started the business, they paid income taxes. if it was a corporation the corporation paid taxes also. why should it be taxed a third time just to be passed on and just to keep the business together? it undermines the life work, life savings of farmers, small and medium-sized businesses in georgia and all across the nation. we all heard the statistics. the united states has the fourth highest estate tax in the industrialized world at 40%. only japan, south korea and -- have higher taxes. it has a disproportionate impact on african-americans. a study by the boston college professors john and paul several years ago estimated between 2001 and 2055 the death tax will erase between 11% and

13% of all african-american wealth. this one tax alone will cost african-american households between $192 billion and $257 billion. some people have argued that the estate tax is no longer a serious problem since we permanently raised exemption to $5 million for individuals and -- $10 million for couples. index to inflation. but nothing can be further from the truth. according to the georgia farm bureau the exemption is barely keeping pace with increasing farmland values. in fact, the number of farms in georgia with building and land value over $5 million rose from 664 to 677 between 2007 and 2012. i just can't stand by and allow this estate tax to continue to punish family-owned businesses in georgia and throughout the country. it's not just farmers. you heard a lot about farms. look at funeral homes funeral directors that have multiple

locations with rolling stock, caskets limousines, hearses and that amounts to a pretty good amount of money. i got constituents who own radio stations finally worked hard to have a family-owned business that would be able to have communications. they started out with one radio station. now they have five stations in three different states. it's a family business. the husband, the wife and now the three kids went to college, to law school and they're running the business. it's a shame they would have to sell that business and ultimately have to lay off employees to pay the 40% of the estate tax. it is clear that the estate tax really hurts the economy. mr. brady: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. bishop: i study by the tax foundation found that repealing the death tax will increase u.s. capital stock by 2.2%.

it would boost g.d.p. and it would create 139,000 jobs which eventually increases federal revenue. this is a tax on success. it's not a big contributor to the revenue of this country. it's a very, very drop in the ocean, really, and so it's time to repeal it. so i urge my cligse to -- colleagues to really think realistically, not ideologically and just do the right thing. i urge you to join my colleagues and repeal the death tax once and for all. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. rangel: i thank you for this opportunity. having served on the ways and means committee for decades is a little embarrassing to see us debating a bill that goes

nowhere. this is a political action that's taken by the majority to select provisions that are in the tax code to have those of us that advocate tax reform to just select those parts that appear to be very popular with some parts of our constituencies. there's nobody in this house that truly believes that this legislation, if passed, ever would become law, but it is something to be using in political campaigns as to what you voted for and why you voted against it. . to list yep to the other side talk, we have some very, very rich fathers. and just because they are in the family doesn't mean that they are not wealthy. first of all, let's go to the video. let's go to the facts and find out how many pool are going to be affected -- people are going to be affected. the statistics show that 99.2%

.8% of the population of those people who died don't pay taxes. who are we talking about? we are talking about a few rich people that are.02% of those people that will be eligible for a tax, and those only after we estimate that the value of their estate of $5 million for one person and $10 million for two. i'm not saying that for these people. it's not going to be inconvenient. but when you think about the number of people that pay taxes, that are working hard every day, are trying to save money for their -- their kids' education, then there's real -- this really means that hundreds of billions of dollars are being setaside for those people that already have. if we really want equity, if we really want fair play, why don't we take a look at the entire tax code. why are we just looking about

the estate tax, local and estate tax because equity is how much money are you raising and how much money do you need? thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: madam speaker, to clarify, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1105rk the death tax repeal act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. brady: proud to yield one minute to fourth generation farmer from indiana, mr. stutzman. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. stutzman: i rise in support of h.r. 1105 the death tax repeal act. i want to thank chairman brady and chairman ryan for their leadership in addressing this issue that's so important for my district in indiana, and folks across the hoosier state. in indiana, under the leadership of mike pence, we officially repealed our state's death tax in 2013. with this bill we can do the same thing on the federal level.

as a fourth gep racial farmer, i see how family-owned businesses already struggle each year with a destructive mess that is our federal tax code. the death tax, which is a double tax on americans' hard work, only adds to the problem. it stifles prosperity. and it prevents individuals and families from making the personal decisions they want to make with their savings and their property for generations to follow them. madam speaker, it's time to repeal the death tax. only accounting for a fraction of a percent worth of annual revenue for the federal government, let's call it what it really s it's a distorted attempt to redistribute the earnings of america's hard work. with that i strongly urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan legislation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker would you tell us the time left on each side.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 5 3/4 minutes. the gentleman from texas has 5 1/4 minutes. mr. mcdermott: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. it's ironic, this week we have had hundreds and hundreds of businesspeople, folks from organized labor, contractors coming to town, pleading with congress to get its act together and enact a six-year, comprehensive transportation bill. we have been frozen in place for years.

23 short-term extensions because congress can't figure out how to provide the resources necessary to deal with a critical situation. america's falling apart and falling behind. and yet we are caught here in inability to provide resources to help to rebuild and revitalize america. that's part of the issue. today my republican friends have discovered that there's $270 billion of revenue that somehow the federal government no longer needs. they have decided to give an additional tax cut to people who need the help the least. and ironically for all the talk about this being a death tax and double taxation, the vast majority of the wealth that will

be untaxed has never been taxed in the first place. you don't get to be a billionaire on w-2 income. it's appreciated capital. but we are going to in their judgment, give a windfall -- we have had this tax for over a century from a republican administration but we are going to turn our back on it because we no longer need $270 billion. while we continue to shortchange america. we are having construction projects stopped this summer because the short-term fix for the transportation bill is going to expire. this is lunacy. it's not fair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: madam speaker i'm proud to yield one minute to the

gentleman from east texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas mr. gohmert, virginia tech for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you madam speaker. several years ago there was an author who wrote a book about millionaires in america, and it was amazing most of the millionaires built a business built a farm, and the number one most commonly driven vehicle by millionaires in america was a ford f-150 truck. they were workers. and there was a time in america when we looked around and we saw somebody work 16 hours a day like my aunt and uncle did and build together a farm and we were proud of them. well, my aunt lili died and the fdic dumped land out by her place before the land could be sold. and so the i.r.s. came in and eventually sold every acre of her land. the family was called in, let's try to at least buy some of her assets from her home, her little

modest home. i bought this music box from aunt lili. it plays amazing grace, but she didn't get amazing grace. her heirs didn't get amazing grace. they ran into the amazing greed of the united states congress. let's take the green eyed monster and put it where it belongs and begin to feel good for people that work for what they own. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: may i inquire from the gentleman from texas, are you ready to close? mr. brady: we have one more speaker before we close. mr. mcdermott: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i'm proud to yield one minute to my colleague from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. herd, is recognized for one minute. mr. herd: madam chair, thank you. i want to share this story of bobby mcknight seventh generation cattleman from my district in fort davis, texas.

bobby says that many farm and ranch families like his may be asset rich, but they are cash poor. most of the value of their estate is distributed to the value of the land they use to raise cattle and grow food for consumers around the world. a lot of that food my colleagues are going to enjoy today. bobby shares that when times have been lean, he has had to make sacrifices to keep his family business above water. but as many small business owners can tell you sometimes you run out of places to cut. that is what happened to his family during hard times brought on by the death tax. he had to let go of season employees that had families of their own, losing the skilled labor he needed to run their operation. now his land value continues to increase, many farm and ranch families concern this may trigger the estate tax. as bobby and others can attest to the death tax is devastating to the family farms ranches, and small businesses in my district and throughout the nation. come on you-all, let's stop punishing families for achieving the american dream.

i support this bill to repeal the death tax and encourage my colleagues to support as well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: the gentleman from texas is ready to close now? thank you madam speaker. i will use the remainder of my time. for the past hour -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 3 3/4 minutes. mr. mcdermott: they tried to play this as a bogeyman that kills family farms. they call the estate tax all names like immoral. they try to claim it's a calculated attack on the american dream. they claim that the estate tax affects more small businesses and start-ups. these wild and inaccurate claims could not be further from the truth. the facts are, republicans have forgotten to mention the estate

tax will only affect 5,400 estates out of an estimated 2.6 million this year. that means repealing the estate tax would amount to a tax break for the top .2%. the hiltons, the koches, those folks. according to the tax policy certainty, only 20 i emphasize 20 small businesses and small farm estates nationwide owned estate tax in 2013. 20. furthermore those 20 estates owed just 4% of their value. now, the real question here is this. america's a wonderful country. we all have a chance to make it. some make it better than others. that's because luck and whatever, hard work, it isn't that everybody who doesn't have money isn't working hard, we are

all working hard. but some have a little more luck than others. and the fact is that if you've had a little luck, don't you owe a little something back to the country? here you've got people who've got $10 billion, we have given it as a state exemption, then they owe 4% on the value on money that has never been taxed beforement it's all -- before. it's all on capital appreciation. now, my republican friends conveniently forget to mention how much this will it cost. $280 billion. that's as though every american today was giving a $1 billion tax cut to the wealthy in this country. that's about 300 some odd

million of us, and if we all gave you know, there we would be. and we are doing this to a group that has no problems whatsoever. their problem is how to keep their money. that's their only problem. so i want people to understand, this is a quarter of a billion dollars and as mr. -- the gentleman from oregon pointed out we have a tremendous problem in infrastructure in this country. but there's no money for that. we have a tremendous problem in investment in the national institutes of health. it used to be the national institutes of health funded 20% of the grant applications that were given to them. today they are only down to 6% of the grants applications that are given to them. we are not investing either in the physical infrastructure or the human infrastructure of this country.

what has made us strong, all those immigrants who came here, about 99.99% are immigrants, came here with nothing. and this country gave us an opportunity to be rich or to be successful. and the only way it will work is if we pay something back into the process. not sitting there using money that you never have been taxed on. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this and think about the 99.8% of the americans who will get no benefit whatsoever. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized for 3 1/4 minutes. mr. brady: thank you, madam speaker. feel free to dismiss the woman in my district a widower, who now has been forced back to the

bank for the third time to take out a loan just to be able to keep the family farm they worked generations, worked generations to keep and hand down. dismiss her as a paris hiltons of the world, superrich. dismiss the 114 organizations who back the repeal, most are main street businesses, who support repeal this death tax, they are store owners they are loggers, loggers in the field. they are plumbers. there's a glamorous life. that's the superrich. that's who after people work weekends and nights to build up their business, these are the ones who when they pass away uncle sam swoops in and confiscates, takes nearly half what they built a lifetime earning. dismiss them if you will, but this is the american dream. the american dream is not a government that promises you welfare checks and food stamps.

the american dream is a thought you can build yourself up, pull yourself up through hard work and skills and dedication. you can build a better life for your family and then to give it to your children and grandchildren so maybe, just maybe they have a better chance of the american dream. they have opportunities maybe you didn't have that they can pass on to their children. you hear today, oh, this affects a few. those are the people that pay the tax. one out of three businesses. more than that of farmers. they're already paying money into tax planning. they're putting money aside. they're spending hours. they'd rather put that into their farm and their business. they'd rather hire young people and new people looking for jobs but instead they're trying to avoid this horrible tax. all for what? for a measly two days of federal spending. actually less than that. this government wastes so much money. it just pours it out of here. so instead of tightening our

belt, we attack the american dream of hardworking families and businesses many of them, by the way, women and minority-owned businesses, building wealth for the first time, believing the american dream is right for them. they're not paris hilton. they're not the barrons. they are not the ones dismissed on the floor today. at the end of the day this is a simple question -- whose money is it? whose hard work and years is it? is it government? is it the washington politicians who will take your money in time, force you to sell your business or family-owned farm and waste it on who knows what? or is it your money and your hard work and your american dream? are you allowed to keep that dream and help your family going forward or is it the government's dream, whatever that could be? at the end of the day, what i love the most about america, we don't resent success.

we strive for it. whatever success is for each of us we strive for it. we're absolutely convinced that we can achieve it for us and that we can maybe give our kids a chance going forward. so this is a simple question. if you stand with those who believe it's the government's rk money and hard work, vote no. if you stand with the family-owned farms and businesses and young people and those facing the american dream, vote yes to end the death tax once and for all. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 200, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes, and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> madam 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 current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. nolan of minnesota moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1105 to the committee on ways and means -- mr. brady: i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. the clerk will read. the clerk: instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, add at the end the following -- section 4, benefits disallowed in cases of gift and estate tax evasion. a, in general, in the case of any disqualified individual one, the internal revenue code of 1986 shall be applied and administered as if the amendments made by this act had never been enacted. two, no credit shall be allowed under section 2505 of such code relating to unified credit

against gift tax with respect to any gifts made after such conviction and, three, the applicable exclusion amount with respect to such individual under section 2010 of such code relating to unified credit against estate tax shall be zero. b, disqualified individual. for purposes of this section, the term disqualified individual means any individual who one, is convicted of attempting to evade or defeat the tax imposed under chapter 12 of such code relating to gift tax or, two, prior to the date of the enactment of this act engaged in a transaction or series of transactions with the intent to evade or defeat the tax imposed under chapter 11 of such code relating to estate tax. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. nolan: madam speaker, this

is the final amendment to the bill which would not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. madam speaker, you know, years ago when i first went into public life, my father, as fathers could be expected, gave me a little fatherly advice. he said, son i'll always be proud of you if you just do a couple of things. what is it, dad? number one, be honest. i don't want my kids getting in trouble. tell the truth. secondly he said, if you're going to go in public life, commit yourself to working for the common good. don't worry too much about the rich. they got a way of taking care of themselves. well, my father never had any money to speak of but, boy he sure understood that. if you look at this chart here, this is what this bill is really all about. this bill is about giving $270 billion in tax benefits to the

richest of the rich. that's right. this is america. and here's that -- less than 1% of the 1%. $270 billion tax break. 5,500 individuals over the next 10 years. that means the rest of the country is going to have to pay for it. have these people benefited from the greatness of america where people are work hard and prosper and become successful? yes of course they have. they're the richest of the rich. and here we want to give them another tax break. talk about greed. talk about carrying the water for the richest of the rich. what are we talking about here? and you know what, it gets even more egregious and that's what my amendment is about here today. under my amendment this little percent, this little 1% of the

1%, if they have engaged and been found guilty of tax fraud as it relates to inheritance and gift taxes, they're going to benefit from this. they amass fortunes to illegal activities as it relates just to this very specific tax. and we want to give them a tax break on the for turns that they amassed illegally? the least we can do, and that's what my amendment does, my amendment says if you've been found guilty of tax fraud try and get more than you already have illegally and criminally, then you're not going to get the benefit of this tax exemption. i am confident that if my good friends and good colleagues here on the floor of the house on both the republican and the democratic side look at this thing honestly, they will say

i've got to support that amendment. i can't go back home and tell my folks how people who were found criminally guilty of trying to cheat the taxpayers of this country out of taxes that were due should be entitled to benefit from that. we can't do that. and i want to remind everybody, you know, here we're looking at this country at a time when the disparity and inequal of income in this country is the worst of any developed nation in the world. people like pope francis are concerned about it. leading economists like al greenspan are talking about it. my god, when hillary clinton and ted cruz announced their candidacy for the presidency because they're concerned about the growing disparity and inequality in income, we got a problem in this country. and mind you, this gift tax, we're here talking about

farmers and business men and -- i'm a small business guy. i spent 32 years of my life in business ok. and let's tell the truth. let's tell the truth. 99% of the people in this country are not required to pay any estate or gift tax because they -- the value of their farm, their business their accumulation in life does not exceed the limits that are allowable under the law which by the way are like $5.5 million per individual. you know $10 million $11 million for a family. that's a pretty nice gift at the end of the day for something that quite frankly you were not the hardworking, creative, innovative person that created that money. you were just the beneficiary by wealth the old-fashioned way, you inherited it. do we all aspire to wealth and success? yeah. that's something we want to applaud, something we want to celebrate. this is about celebrating, you

know, the gift of inheritance and there's plenty of it here in this legislation. you know, at the end of the day this bill is really about the 99% because they're the ones that will have to make up the $270 billion a gift we already gave to the richest of the rich. that's not how you fix this problem of growing disparity that is threatening our economy threatening our well-being. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nolan: i urge the adoption of my amendment. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. brady: madam speaker, first, i withdraw the reservation of point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation for point of order is withdrawn. mr. brady: and i seek recognition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman seeks recognition -- i mean the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. brady: thank you, madam speaker. all this is a red herring. the desperation you hear is for a government in washington that desperately wants to keep

spending your money on $800 toilets and on research products that make no sense and feel free to waste your money because they're not the ones who worked a lifetime to earn it. today we heard congresswoman kristi noem talk about the tragedy of her dad and three days after his death they were notified by uncle sam that they owed or they would have to sell that ranch. we heard from a gentleman from texas whose dad built up from one car and four stalls a family-owned car dealership, 400 workers, profitable company nearly went bankrupt because they had to pay uncle sam or sell the business. they worked 20 years to pay off that loan. my constituents -- a woman who is a widower, who was forced back to the bank for the third time paying death tax for grandfather, father and now she and her husband just to keep the family farm they worked generations on.

these are the people who are punished by this tax. it is not the government's money and work. it is yours. this is all about that issue and at the end of the day unless we want to keep attacking the american dream and insisting that uncle sam swoop in and take your nest egg, it is time to restore the american dream, to end the death tax once and for all. i urge our colleagues to defeat this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- mr. nolan: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having

arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to the order of the house of today, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. brady: madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 200, i call up the bill h.r. 622 and ask for immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 32, h.r. 622, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to make permanent the deduction of state and local general sales taxes.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 200, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part a of house report 114-74 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. brady. mr. brady: thank you, madam speaker. i mr. bladey: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 622rk state and local sales tax deduction fairness act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. brady: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas virginia tech. mr. brady: madam speaker, i want to thank my colleagues jim mcdermott, and marsha blackburn for joining me in leading the fight to make this middle class tax provision permanent. this provision is about tax

fairness and equal treatment. if taxpayers and income tax states can deduct their state and local income tax, so should residents of sales tax states. that in america is just fair. this provision helps hardworking taxpayers keep a little more of what they earn, which is ever more important to families given the stagnant paychecks over the past number of years. more than 10 million american taxpayers in nine states depend on this commonsense deduction, and the dollars that stay in the local community help grow their economy rather than grow washington's economy. a permanent state and local sales tax deduction provides certainty to american families makes federal budgets scorekeeping more honest, and removes the as tirrisk from this temporary provision so the pro-growth tax reform can advance. it's certainly important to texas since its been restored, my neighbors have saved more than $10 billion, which buys a lot of school clothes, gas for

your car, and helps with rising college costs. to be sure, this provision isn't reserved just for sales tax states. it allows you will american taxpayers to choose whether they deduct their state and local income or their state and local sales taxes, which ever is greater. that's fair, that's equal treatment. let's be honest, extending this provision temporary year after year, which is exactly what's been done since 2004, that won't cost anymore than making it permanent today and creating that certainty and fairness for taxpayers. i want to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting middle class families by making this provision permanent. madam speaker with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas voifs. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. -- the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: state and local sales tax deduction is an important tax provision for americans

living in states without a state income tax who cannot take advantage of the state and local income tax deduction. although i support this deduction as an important alternative for taxpayers in states without income taxes, h.r. 622 is fiscally irresponsible given that it permanently extends this deduction without any offsets. frankly, i'm quite surprised that the republican leadership is advancing this bill that would add $42 billion to the deficit. just last year, then chairman dave camp proposed eliminating the state and local sales tax deduction in the republican tax reform draft. at that time, current chairman ryan said he approved of eliminating the sales tax provision before us. further, just last month the republican leadership presented

a budget that requires offsetting the cost of any tax extenders that are made permanent with other revenue measures. indeed, the g.o.p. budget principle is in line with the republican tax reform draft last year. which adopted a fiscally responsible approach. so i'm at a loss to understand why the republican leadership is adding $42 billion to our deficit to permanently extend a provision it thinks should be repealed. this bill coupled with the next bill under consideration would add over $300 billion to our deficit, almost half of the amount the republican budget said we must cut from domestic discretionary spending. the republican budget said that we had to cut $759 billion over

the next 10 years in domestic discretionary spending in the name of fiscal prudence. but can throw $300 billion to the wind for a provision that they have proposed eliminating in tax reform. we need to provide certainty to taxpayers in affected states that the sales tax deduction will be available to them this year, and then we need to focus on comprehensive reform. this bill moves us further away from tax reform not closer. in addition to being fiscally irresponsible, this bill coupled with the next one under consideration reflect misplaced priorities for this house. rather than pushing a piecemeal deficit inflating agenda, we should be helping hardworking

american families by raising the minimum wage ensuring equal pay for equal work, making college more affordable by increasing the pell grants, and improving student loans. helping low-income families afford quality childcare, encouraging work effective tax programs, improving investment in low-income communities, and strengthening the research innovation, and competitive -- competitiveness of our nation, just to name a few critical efforts on which we should focus. i am ready to work with the majority on tax reform. however, i cannot support this piecemeal fiscally irresponsible approach, and urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois reserves, the gentleman from

texas is recognized. mr. brady: madam speaker i'm please to yield a minute and a half to the leader of our tax reform subcommittee, and a champion in restoring the state and local sales deduction, the gentleman from washington, mr. reichert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. reichert: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas for allowing me time to speak. recognizing that texas is also, one of the states affected by this bill as well as washington state, which is a state where i come from, and several other states. i rise to support h.r. 622rk the state and local sales tax deduction fairness act, and i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. madam speaker, this bill's really about two things. it's about fairness and it's about certainty. fairness because washington, as i said, one of several states without an income tax and by allowing this deduction of state and local taxes, this legislation will put washingtonians on the same level

as those people who live in states that have an income tax. that's all. it's plain and simple. it's fairness. that's all we are asking for in this bill. a certainty because people work hard, they pay their sales taxes, and at the end of the year, they want to know for sure that they can deduct their sales tax. that's all it is. fairness and certainty, fairness puts us on parity with the rest of the sits across the country. certainty by allowing people in washington and others that when they spend and pay their sales taxes they can deduct those from their federal income tax at the end of the year. that's it. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized mr. brady: i'm really proud to honor one of the key

leaders of the ways and means committee who has been in this fight to successfully restore and extend sales tax deduction for many years the gentleman from texas, i yield two minutes to mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, madam chairman. i thank my good friend and texan mr. brady, for yielding. mr. speaker, today we are voting on a bill that's long overdue. a bill that would permanently allow taxpayers including most especially my constituents, to permanently deduct the state and local sales taxes that they pay. back in 2004, i was part of the effort that brought back this important tax deduction. unfortunately, as many of my constituents know too well this deduction is not permanent. and because it's not permanent, congress has had to renew it. almost every year. this creates uncertainty for taxpayers. that's why this bill is so

important by making this deduction permanent, we can provide taxpayers with the certainty that they deserve. but this bill isn't just about providing certainty, it's about providing fairness. right now taxpayers in states with income taxes can permanently deduct their state and local income taxes, but in states without an income tax like texas, taxpayers can't permanently deduct their state and local sales taxes. that's wrong. that's unfair. it shouldn't matter what type of state and local taxes we are talking about. if the i.r.s. allows folks to permanently deduct their income tax, it ought to also alou for sales tax. the i.r.s. shouldn't discriminate against hardworking taxpayers in other states like texas. with many hardworking americans, taxpayers are trying to make ends meet. every dollar in the pocketbook makes a difference.

in closing i'd like to thank my good friend, mr. brady, for his work on this important bill and i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: again i emphasize my surprise at republican priorities before us. this week the joint economic committee issued a report on the economic challenges facing the african-american community. the findings are stark and detail the significant racial inequities in employment earnings, wealth, and poverty. the report shows that the median income of african-american households is $34,600. nearly $24,000 less than the median income of whitehouse holds. black americans are nearly three

times more likely to live in poverty than white americans. at 10.1%, the current unemployment rate for black americans is more than double that for white americans. in my congressional district, the rate of black unemployment is 24.5%. comparing to only 5.1% for white unemployment. these facts exemplify the extraordinary growth of inequality in recent years. the massive inequality and the injustices which flow from the great imbalance grips so many of our neighborhoods, so many of our towns and villages, so many of our people who need and deserve the opportunity to share in all of our nation's potential and all that it has to offer. these are the topics on which policymakers should focus, not hundreds of billions of dollars in piecemeal tax cuts for the

wealthiest corporations and heirs' estates over 10 million. the republican budget proposes to raise taxes on 26 million working families and students by discontinuing important improvements to the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and education tax credits. the republican budget proposes making college more costly by freezing the maximum pell grant award. eliminating mandatory pell funding. reducing eligibility for pell grants. eliminating the in-school interest subs dirks and cutting the public service loan forgiveness program. the republican budget would end compare as we know it. and proposes undermining the retirement and employee benefits of federal workers and postal workers.

it cuts funding for the internal revenue service, which results in less revenue for our government, undermines taxpayer assistance, and encourages fraud. we should focus on repairing our tax code and enacting policies to help hardworking americans share in the economic opportunity enjoyed by the wealthiest americans and most profitable companies. i yield back the balance of my time. if the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i'm proud to yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the house who's been fighting for state and local sales tax deduction and as a new mom understands just how expensive it is to raise families these days the gentlelady from washington mrs. mer rare a butler. ms. herrera butler: i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. that's so important to the

residents in my state, the people i serve. i encourage folks to support permanently extending the state and local sales tax deduction. this bill -- i was listening to the previous speaker and i don't think he was really focused on this bill. this bill is about ensuring rest didn't of washington and seven other states that they have -- they are treated equally, that their income taxes are treated equally by the federal tax code. it's a fairness issue. . residents from 40 other states get to deduct state income tax but residents of washington state don't have that option. we pay one of the highest sales taxes in the country, and we are forced to carry a higher amount of the federal burden. mr. speaker, that's not right. since it's my job to fight for the residents folks in my state are the highest beneficiaries of

the deduction. more use it than any other state. my predecessor, who was a democrat was a big proponent of this bill as well. at a time when several counties in washington are still in economic recovery, we need to make sure that families who have paid their fair share of taxes get to keep a little more of their money. $464024, that's the average claim. a mom in washington can make $464024 go a long way when she spends it on groceries, gas soccer cleats for the kids, that money is going back into the local economy. we hear about fairness when it comes to the tax code and i believe in fairness and for job-creating businesses. what a better way than to seize this opportunity to permanently

each this into our tax code. i ask my colleagues to support it. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: i have no further speakers and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: jabt. or the gentleman reserve? the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield two minutes to one of our key members of the ways and means committee who has been fighting for this and representative from tennessee and how expensive it is for main street. mrs. black. mrs. black: i rise today in strong support of the state and local state deduction fairness act. tennessee is one of the eight

states without a state income tax. such a tax is banned in our constitution. we do, however, have a state and local sales tax which could be as high as 49.4745% in parts of my district. taxpayers in other states are able to deduct their state income tax on their federal returns and only makes sense that we should be able to do the same when it comes to their state and local sales tax. in 240124, more than 148% of the residents of tennessee did that, getting an average deduction of 4404. too often they haven't been able to count on this tax credit being available from one year to the next. today, let's ensure that this tax provision for families that they rely upon aren't subject to a political tug of war here in washington. let's help our small businesses

plan for tomorrow and giving them peace of mind that this credit will be there for them now and in the future. let's make the state and local sales tax deduction permanent by passing this bipartisan bill. mr. speaker, is a matter of fairness. i urge a yes vote on h.r. 462424, and i yield bark. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: i have no further speakers and at this time i will close and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the

senate disagrees to the amendment the congressional budget for the united states government for fiscal year 240146 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 240147 to 240245 and agrees to a conference in the house which the concurrence of the house is requested. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: i rise to thank the chairman of the ways and means committee for bringing this measure to the floor and offering hope to taxpayers in states across the country that they will be treated fairly. mr. ryan is making tax reform, fixing this broken tax code a top priority and this measure helps us take a step towards

that by creating certainty for taxpayers by creating more score keeping and budgeting, because we are going to extend this temporarily. it makes no difference doing it permanently but creates that and removes the provision so we can do tax reform that creates a much healthier economy. at the end of the day if you support fairness for taxpayers in sales tax states if you believe we ought not to discriminate depending on where you live, we not in states who believe that sales tax is the right way to go, this measure is for you. i acknowledge the president has threatened a veto on this bill. i guess my question is why turn your back on hardworking taxpayers middle-class economics means helping those

who are living paycheck to pay check and making sure they can keep a little bit more of what they earn. i urge support for a permanent extension of the important sales and local tax deduction. i yiled back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 2400, the previous question is ordered. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. thiffered reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the revenue code of 1494846 to make permanent the deduction of state and local sales taxes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? i'm opposed to the bill in its current form. mr. brady: i reserve a point of

order. the clerk: mr. neal of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill h.r. 462424 to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house forth with with the following amendment. strike section 24 and insert the following, no increase of tax reform. and shall result in one, and increase in the deficit or two, a delay or weakening of efforts to adopt the election to deduct state and local sales taxes so long as it is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner. section three, one year extension of deduction, state and local general sales taxes, and of the internal revenue code is amended by striking january 14 240145 and inserting january 14 240146. the amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable

years. mr. neal: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. neal: thank you very much, mr. speaker and the question i would have for my friend, mr. brady, he spoke about the notion of fundamental tax reform and reasonable mind in this chamber might say when? the chairman's not even here this morning and he sends mr. brady out to defend what we all know in the end is going to be a one-year extension of this tax provision. so friends this is a messaging amendment. after they get today after repealing the estate tax, perhaps we could call this now the house of lords, where it might be peer review that brings

us hear. it's april. the birds are chirping, the flowers are blooming, the days are getting longer, the nights are getting warmer. spring has sprung. the onset of spring brings with it a new baseball season. that time of year when hope springs eternal and every fan thinks their team has a fair shot of claiming baseball glory. however, for the fans of bipartisan tax reform, republicans are saying here, in april wait until next year. yesterday was the 1400th day of the 1414th congress. 1400 days up and not closer to make it a reality. they have wasted four months of

valuable time and have nothing to show for it. they whiffed on the permanent tax bills they passed. not one of these bills has become law, nor will it become law. the president has made it clear and shoed a veto threat on every one of these bill. contrast this with the senate finance committee, rather than pursue a minor league strategy adding to the deficits, after another on party-line votes, they are working to move forward on tax reform. democrats have no quarrel with the bill that's before us today but with one exception. state and local sales tax deduction promotes tax fairness to the states that do not impose a state income tax. it only makes sense that if taxpayers in income tax states can deduct their state and local taxes, should the residents of

sales tax taxes. we support making them eventually permanent, but not at the cost of $424 billion a year being added to the deficit. this is how they have done all of these tax extenders. the party that will have us believe that they are champions of fiscal responsibility. mr. speaker, we are prepared to step to the plate as democrats, pass a bipartisan tax reform bill that really hits it out of the park for middle class people creates jobs and gives special interests a little chin music or as we call it a brushback and bring in everlasting growth as we experienced in the clinton years here in america. surpluses for years, growth unprecedented. 2434 million jobs were created.

that's the experience we should be talking about. my friend, mr. ryan, is saying that this committee can walk and chew gum at the same time. and guess what? i believe him. so, mr. chairman do we prefer wrigley's, huba bubba or maybe classic big league chew. let's get onto the third inning and get tax reform done and stop pro cast tin ating and i yield back. mr. brady: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i withdraw also the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and objection to the motion to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. brady: this motion is what people sort of hate about washington. we say we stand for fairness for

taxpayers in sales tax states but only for a few more months. we say we don't want to discriminate between you and income tax states, but only for a few more months. up here, washington says, we think you ought to keep more of what you've earned because it's expensive to raise a family, but only for a few more months, because we in washington, they say, we have the power to yank this any time we want sm the truth of the matter is, it is expensive to raise families and our tax code picks winners and losers. what this provision does is make permanent the fairness to ensure taxpayers across america are treated equally, that this tax code doesn't discriminate and keep little more of the money it takes to raise your family, to buy that gas, buy the school clothes to pay the utilities. that's all that this law does. it is a step toward tax reform

and bringing in the i.r.s. because it removes this temporary provision we extend year after year. it is about honest budgeting because those who claim there is a large cost to this they are going to vote. there is no difference there, just a talking point. at the end of the day, this creates a certainty for our taxpayers and removes that temporary provision and moves us forward to pro-growth tax reform that creates a much healthier economy and a tax code that is fair, flatter and simpler. i urge support for permanently helping families in lowering costs of taxes and i yield back. . in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i request the yeas and nays.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the order of the house of today this is a 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit. will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 622, if ordered. the motion to recommit on h.r. 1105 and passage of h.r. 1105, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas 179. the nays 243. the motion is not adopted. question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed will vote no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been

requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [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 271. the nays -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 272. the nays are 152. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on h.r. 1105, offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: offered by mr. nolan of minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the question sont motion to recommit. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 186 and the nays is 232. those in favor of passage of the bill, say aye. those opposed, no. for what purpose does the gentleman from drk seek recognition? . >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 240 and nays are 179. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the clerk: an act to amend title

18 of the sobal security act to repeal medicare sustainable growth rate and strengthen medicare access by improving physician improvements to re-authorize the program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to 4 u.s.c. 2702, i reappoint as a member of the advisory committee on the records of congress the following person, dr. shannon leon fairfax, virginia, signed sincerely, karen l. haas.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. speaker. -- mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, before i yield to my friend, the majority leader, for the purposes of informing us of the schedule, i'd like to note the presence of the longest serving member of this house in history

one of the best legislators in the history of this house and one of the most decent human beings i know and we're so proud to have him on the floor with us once again. his successor, who he knows very well, debbie dingle, is with him as well and john dingell, mr. speaker, we welcome you, mr. speaker pro tempore, back to the house of representatives. we're so glad to see you. and mr. chairman your -- the beautiful deborah beautiful deborah is doing a wonderful job representing your district. i now mr. speaker yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. mccarthy for the purposes

of informing us of the schedule for the week to come. mr. mccarthy: i thank you the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday, no votes are expected in the house. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30. on wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday no votes are expected in the house. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 1195, the bureau of consumer financial protection advisory board act, authorized by representative robert pittinger. this bipartisan bill which

enjoys significant support from the financial services committee, including the ranking member, will ensure that there is appropriate input given on actions taken by cfpb. finally, mr. speaker, the house will consider two critical cybersecurity measures, h.r. 1560, the protecting cybernetworks act authorized by -- authored by chairman devin nunes, and h.r. 1731, the national cybersecurity protection advancement act authored by chairman mike mccaul. these bipartisan bills will improve cyberthreat, information sharing between the private sector and the government and ensure that america can meet cyberchallenges now and into the future. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. initially, i'd like to just bring up a question with reference to the bureau of consumer financial protection advisory board act.

the gentleman talked about bipartisan legislation. this, as the gentleman may know, was a very bipartisan bill with one of your members and one of my members mr. heck on my side, joining together committee overwhelmingly in favor of setting up an advisory board so there would be input from small business. unfortunately, as the gentleman knows there has subsequently been added a funding source which undermines from our perspective at the same time that we're trying to add an advisory board which undermines the operations of the consumer financial protection advisory board. it is mr. leader, somewhat ironic that we just passed $300 billion in reduced revenues without paying for them and are

now worried about $9 million. the bible has something to say about the moat in one's eye being the object of attention but it seems somewhat ironic and i would hope that we could return this bill, which is a very admirable bill, to a bipartisan condition and not undermine the consumer financial protection board at the same time that we are trying to give it some additional advice and counsel. i'll be glad to yield to my friend. hopefully perhaps a suggestion where we might return this bill to its bipartisan and overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the aisle condition, and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman knows, the only change in this bill is to make sure that the taxpayers are protected and not having to

be greater debt -- it's a simple pay-for as we move forward. it's got bipartisan support coming out of the committee and we hope we can be able to move it on the floor. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. i think the gentleman probably knows that i am one of the biggest proponents of paying for things which is why i voted against your two tax bills on the floor today. they're not paid for and $300 billion of revenue will be reduced. that will exacerbate the deficit. that is why we have pay-go. so i'm supportive of pay-go, but i would like to see if we can reach a bipartisan agreement on a pay-for which does not undermine the operations of the consumer financial protection board. i know your side, with all due respect mr. leader, does not like the consumer financial protection bureau -- consumer financial protection board and would like to repeal it and reduce its funding greatly.

we disagree with that. we have a great disagreement on that proposition. so all i'm saying is we have a bill on which there is bipartisan support. i see my friend, mr. lucas, on the floor on the ag bill. he gave the most eloquent statements on the floor that i heard about -- look, we have a bipartisan agreement. don't look bipartisanship in the eye and say no. so we're turning a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill, not because we're against paying for it. we're for paying for it. but we're against undermining the ability of the consumer financial protection board to protect consumers as it was designed and we need to adequately fund it without adding responsibilities and reducing its resources to protect the public. if the gentleman wants to say anything further i'll yield to him. if not i'll go on to another

subject. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate his comments. as the gentleman knows most every american has had to in the last few years cut back based upon an economy. i do not believe it's too difficult to find $9 million out of a $600 million budget a year, and i would think the consumers would expect that of the organization as well. we can all tighten our belt to make sure that taxpayers are protected and i continue to look forward to working with you but i know you think things should be paid for as well that there is a fine opportunity here that we can find nine out of 600. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i think what i hear is we're not going to reach bipartisan agreement on that and that's unfortunate. the cybersecurity bill, as the gentleman mentioned will we consider the two cybersecurity

bills together or separately? we've heard some information over here about whether they may be joined together or whether let's consider them discreetly each one of them. i think they're relatively noncontroversial in some respects, but will the gentleman tell us how they might be considered? mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman knows, i usually don't like to get ahead of the rules committee but we will consider these bills separate but then joined together and sent to the senate. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. the gentleman also has brought up the issue of -- well, i don't think you brought it up but let me talk about it. as we know april 15 occurred yesterday. the budget was supposed to be adopted as of yesterday.

as the gentleman and i both know when my party was in charge, as when your party was in charge, we haven't met that april 15 deadline, but i know the gentleman has talked about reconciliation instructions. the senate bill, of course, does have reconciliation instructions to the finance committee and to the help committee the health education, labor and pensions committee. the house apparently has left itself room to have instructions to every committee. can the gentleman tell us, a when he expects the budget conference to report back and when we might consider that conference on the floor and then secondly, whether or not he believes there will be reconciliation instructions beyond the affordable care act?

we understand that that's contemplated, but beyond the affordable care act does the gentleman expect reconciliation instructions on other matters? and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman knows since my side of the aisle has taken majority we have done a budget every single year. we have passed a budget on this floor. we have voted this week to go to conference. we have appointed conferees, and we were actually excited about the change in the senate and them moving a budget, so we're very hopeful we'll get this done very quickly. i do not want to get ahead of the conferees working, but i'm hopeful they'll get back soon and i -- when seeing how far they go i hope they'll give as much flexibility as possible when it comes to reconciliation. mr. hoyer: so that the gentleman contemplates going

beyond reconciliation instructions on the affordable care act to other matters. for instance, in the house budget, we replaced seniors' medicare guarantee with a premium support voucher. would the majority leader expect a reconciliation instruction replacing seniors' medicare guarantee with such a premium support voucher? mr. mccarthy: as the gentleman knows, i do not like to get ahead of the conferees. i will let them work forward and see what comes back, and as soon as their work is done, we'll notify everyone and be happy to have it back onto the floor. mr. hoyer: i know that you don't want to anticipate, but obviously our members are concerned about what they ought to be considering and planning for and making themselves aware of the facts about does the gentleman expect a reconciliation instruction on

the part of the budget that passed by the house that turns medicaid into a capped block grant, reducing the grant by approximately 1/3? i yield to my friend. the funding by 1/3? mr. mccarthy: i appreciate the gentleman going line by line but if i could be very clear, i do not want to get in front of the conference and as soon as they get their work done, there will be plenty of time to notify all members of what comes before the house and we will notify them at that time. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i hope that's the case, and i would hope that we did not have that. we talked about -- i've talked about, you've talked about just now bipartisanship. i would hope that we would pass a budget that then the appropriations committee and other committees would be able to work on so we could have a bipartisan product as opposed to another confrontation that

would go way past october 1 of this year and we would be back in the position of having to have a continuing resolution on which there would be a confrontation and the threatening of shutting down government. obviously to the extent that we can as i suggested with respect to the consumer financial protection board, to the extent we can have bipartisan agreement. the gentleman was just with me with senator mcconnell in noting the passage of the sustainable growth rate bill which dealt with community health centers and dealt with the children's health insurance program. senator mcconnell said the american people expect us to do work, and he used the s.g.r. example as a way that we did work in a constructive bipartisan fashion, making compromises on both sides of the aisle with speaker boehner and leader pelosi representing

the two parties, came together and worked and my staff and i think your staff participated as well and we came to an agreement. . i hope we can do that. obviously the budget doesn't that way. we don't like the sequester and we think it undermines the national security and undermines the investments that america needs to make in its infrastructure and its education, health care and environment and other areas that are of critical importance. so i would hope on these issues, while i understand the gentleman's thing that there will be notice of it, i would hope we could have some discussions about it so we could try to come to as we did with s.g.r. an agreement and that passed with 392 votes.

you worked hard on it, i worked hard on it. 392 votes in this house. that was one of the best days we have had this year. it may have been the best day we had this year. and the items that i raised are of great concern. hopefully we could have discussions on that before simply being informed that those would be in reconciliation instructions. let me go to -- the gentleman made an eloquent statement yesterday. that statement was on the 150th anniversary of the assassination of one of the greatest americans in history. and that was abraham lincoln. abraham lincoln helped cure one of the blackest blots on

america's reputation and america's moral commitment by issuing the emancipation proclamation. however, as you know, subsequent to the adoption of the 13th amendment, which the gentleman also referenced we had vicious segregation. we had policies put in place that prevented african-americans from registering, much less voting. the gentleman and i had the opportunity to work across the edmund pettus bridge together where alabama state troopers were sent by governor wallace to stop people from simply going to register to vote.

mr. sensenbrenner and mr. conyers and our friend john lewis one of the great heroes of the american civil rights movement have co-sponsored a bill jim sensenbrenner being the former chairman of the judiciary committee, john conyers, being the ranking member have sponsored a bipartisan bill which would return the protections that were undermined by the supreme court decision in the shelby county versus holder case. i believe it's important and i think the gentleman shares this view, that we absolutely protect the rights of every american to register and to vote. and to ensure that the policies adopted by any state or any county or any municipality are not such that it undermines the

ability of citizens to register and to vote. this is bipartisan legislation. i would ask the leader respectfully that one of the great tributes to abraham lincoln who talked about a nation divided against itself talked about a nation that did not give equality to all of its citizens, talked about a nation that needed to respect the inclusion of all people irrespective of their race. i would ask respectfully that the legislation co-sponsored by mr. sensenbrenner and mr. conyers and john lewis be brought to this floor we can, in fact, ensure that every

american, every american has the right to register to vote and is protected by their federal government from the discrimination and solution that we know historically has happened too often. and i urge my friend the majority leader, to bring that bill, that bipartisan bill to the floor for debate, open to amendment and discussion and a vote. and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for his comments regarding abraham. yesterday was the 150th anniversary of his passing. it was also a significant day yesterday as well as jackie robinson of breaking the color barrier in baseball. as the gentleman knows as we walked across that bridge with our good friend john lewis, the

difference it has made in those last years when he was first beaten across this bridge and how far this country has come. the bill is before the committee. it is not scheduled for the floor next week. we will watch as the committee continues to work and the gentleman and i can continue to work on the issues to make sure we get this done. mr. hoyer: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise today to congratulate dr. julio frank as being named as the sixth

president of the university of miami and the first hispanic to be sleggetted for this job. dr. frank joins my hometown hurricanes after a tenure as dean of harvard's school of public health. he settled in mexico dr. frank's career as an academic and public servant also includes his service as the mexican minister of health under president fox. i would like to welcome dr. frank and his wife to south florida and to the miami hurricanes family and i look forward to working with him as he leads the university's continued transformation into the global research hub and world class international city. thank you, mr. speaker, and go hurricanes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? >> permission to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: trade adjustment assistance was designed as a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of america's workers last line of defense when they lose their jobs through no fault of their own thanks to nafta and other bad trade deals that outsourced their jobs. many workers never qualified even when they were eligible. the american people need much more than just adjustment assistance for thousands more workers whose jobs will be outsourced by the transpacific partnership. america needs trade deals themselves to be adjusted so they create jobs in america rather than suck them away to foreign shores. this hasn't happened for nearly four decades. since 1976, our nation has lost 46 million due to lopsided trade geements and last year our economy lost 16% of its growth

due to the overhang of the growing trade deficits. thousands of steel workers have been pink slipped and laid off due to imported steel. with every loss of u.s. job our nation's economy gets weakened. families become less financially secure. what we need and must learn is the history of bad trade deals. congress can't repeat the mistakes of the past. our nation needs a new trade model that creates more jobs in the nation instead of outsourcing our jobs to foreign shores. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, on march 27, another outstanding member of america's greatest generation departed from this world.

lieutenant john leer, a lifelong resident of cincinnati is an example of what we try to emulate. he was a member of the airmen, a group of african-american fighter pilots that protected allied bombers over the skies of europe. on march 27 2009 six years before mr. leer's death, the airmen were awarded the congressional gold medal. lieutenant leer hoped that the successes of the red tails as they were known would shift the racial prejudice that african-americans faced before the war. but after fighting fascism overseas, he had to continue fighting discrimination back home. over the years, times changed and the people of cincinnati and our entire nation became to recognize the heroism of lieutenant leer. i had the honor to meet john in recent years and his story is remarkable, a story that needs

to be told for generations. today, i, with all of you, honor his courage and thank him for his unparalleled service. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: i rise to honor national day of silence. tomorrow is the 18th year we recognized the day of silence when young people come together to raise awareness of discrimination lgbt students face. students like karen who said identity extends further than our physical selves. so when expression becomes restricted, it is similar to having chains placed on your home. i'm a proud sponsor of the

student nondiscrimination act. and california is the leader in promoting and protecting the rights of our lgbt community. we celebrate the 15th anniversary of the act and recent passage of a bill to make sure students they have facilities in their schools. we have the responsibility not to be silent. it is our job to speak for those who cannot. we must work harder towards becoming a gender-inclusive society that welcomes and protects all of our members. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. i rise to honor amonoamono and

recognize the staff and volunteers who support this organization. in 2000, community leaders saw a rise in the latino immigrant population and the struggles they faced due to language barriers and lack of higher education. mr. speaker, these leaders took it upon themselves to help the growing community through support and education and opened the doors and began providing services such as community school for parents, kindergarten readiness citizenship preparation, employment connection and health education. it's because of organizations that families can break down the barriers they face and succeed. through these services, mr. speaker, this organization has empowered immigrants and underserved families to become proud contributing members of our community. i congratulate them on their 15-year anniversary.

and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama seek recognition? ms. sewell: mr. speaker, today i rise to talk about the critical need for stronger oversight of pay day lenders. in march, i welcomed president obama to the city of birmingham in my district where he highlighted our nation's economic recovery and put a spotlight on the area that needed most improvement. the president highlighted the urgent need for federal regulation of the pay day lending industry, the very same day that the consumer financial protection burro unveiled proposals to bring in this loosely regulated industry. i hope my colleagues will support the efforts to ensure that these products help not harm, consumers. the pay day lending and title loan industry must take steps to ensure that borrowers understand the loan terms and have the resources to pay them back. in my district the

proliferation of pay day lending is really unacceptable on every corner, you will find a pay day lender. the president quoted there were more institutions in my district than there were mcdonald's. they are african-american and latinos that were hurt by the predatory lending practices and far too many of these borrowers find themselves trapped in a cycle of debt. i plan to introduce a bill and spearhead efforts led by consumer industry groups to protect consumers from predatory lending. i ask my colleagues to join me. these good people are my constituents and not this industry. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in memory of mary richter. everybody knew her at real estate, in the chico, california area. mr. lamalfa: she left a deep impact on her family and the community. the chico community. she was a very, very sweet lady indeed. born in 1932 at the height of the great depression, her first job was behind a soda fountain in a drugstore to help support her family she married her husband bernie in 1953 after they midwest in high school. their marriage last until he passed away. bernie, being in the state legislator, she was a very supportive -- legislature, she was a very supportive role. sometimes an arduous one. she would say, oh, bernard, when things got out of control.

she moved to chico in the 1960's. real estate point of order her heart into her town -- rae poured her heart into her town. rae fought valiantly with parkinson's disease since 1988, displayed courage and joy even in that battle and so being that supportive wife, a loving mom and grandmother a joyful business manager and good friend to many she will be greatly missed by all who knew her in northern california. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. perry of pennsylvania for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced

policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, when i was a boy my father used to point out to me that there were certain moments, certain events that not only define perhaps a community or a generation but leave an indelible mark on a person. he referenced me to go speak to my grandparents about where they were when the news came that pearl harbor had been bombed and i can remember my grandfather lucas describing the exact field, the exact row that he was picking cotton in

in december of 1941 when one of the neighbors stopped and said have you heard? my father could tell you exactly the moment walking down the street in elk city, oklahoma when he walked up to a crowd staring into a store selling televisions because everyone's mouth was down, everyone was aghast of the news in dallas. in many ways, the experience of two minutes after 9:00 a.m. on april 19, 1995, has had the same mark and the same effect on not only myself, my colleagues in this delegation but our communities in the country. like my grandfather remembering the moment that he found out about pearl harbor, my father the moment he understood that president kennedy had been

assassinated, i'll never forget sitting with the oklahoma delegation waiting to give testimony in a brac hearing in dallas when a reporter taffed tapped me on the shoulder, a reporter i'd known for some time and he said, we have a report that there's been an explosion at the federal building in oklahoma city. they say the building is gone. your district office is in one of those federal buildings in downtown oklahoma city. which building are your people in? a moment that i'll never forget. the delegation got up and in mass we rushed out into the lobby and there on the television monitors was the building that we recognized as the shell of the measureo building. it literally was gone. -- shell of the murrow building. it literally was gone. my folks were spare but 168 of our good fellow citizens in

oklahoma city that day were not. and this sunday morning we will gather to remember that event 20 years ago. an event that's changed us all forever. i'm proud of my oklahoma delegation here today because we still work now as we did 20 years ago to address those issues. and i'll yield to one of my colleagues from oklahoma who was at that time secretary of state for the state of oklahoma , one of the folks in the inner circle in governor keating's administration as state government responded to something that no one could have expected. i yield to the gentleman. mr. cole: i thank my friend for yielding.

and i thank you for having this extraordinary moment not only for our state and for what was then his district but i think for americans every where, 20 years ago on april 19 of 1995 we saw a domestic tragedy of historic proportions. it's still the largest single act of domestic terrorism in american history. and it was totally unexpected totally unanticipated and extraordinarily devastating to the people involved and i think to the country as a whole. but sometimes out of a tragedy of that proportion a triumph emerges and that certainly what occurred in oklahoma city on april 19, 1995, and the days that followed. our first thoughts on the 20th anniversary is always of the victims. the 168 lives that were lost,

19 of them children unknowing that disaster was about to overtake them. and of the many dozens who were wounded severely and have still to this daycarey those injuries with them. and then next we think always of the first responders, particularly the oklahoma city fire and police officers that immediately rushed to the scene, the surrounding fire and police departments that were rapidly mobilized to assist them the oklahoma national guard that was there within a matter of hours but frankly rescue teams from all across the united states of america who immediately moved in our direction to help our people. and i think of the people of oklahoma next who stunned but rallied enormously with enormous speed and with great courage try and support each

and every way they could the folks that -- whose lives had been lost and the people that were still in danger. i still remember that day at the governor's office. at the end of the day 2:00 in the morning, driving from the capital toward my home in moore oklahoma, and seeing a line of people outside the blood center at 2:00 in the morning still there and wanting to help and be supportive in whatever way that they could. but we were really, really blessed at that particular moment in the history of our state and in the history of our country with extraordinary leadership. i think first always because i worked for governor keating as his secretary of state the manner in which he responded. like my friend, mr. lucas, i heard about this totally unexpectedly. i was literally walking into the capitol at 9:02 in a tunnel and felt a little shutter.

walked into my office and i got a -- my secretary immediately walked in and said your wife is on the phone. she was working two blocks away from the site of the bombing. she was on the 18th floor of a building. she said i don't know what's happened but i'm looking down i can see an enormous smoke and explosion occurred and there are hundreds of people on the street fleeing from this disaster. my office was below the governor's office on the first floor of the capitol and i went up -- and this was maybe eight minutes into the event -- and walked in because i knew the governor would be focused on this, obviously and he was standing in the pressroom immediately to the right as you walk in and at that time there were already helicopters in the air and on the scene we were seeing horrific sights and the speculation immediately it was some sort of natural gas explosion. well, frank keating, our

governor, was also a former f.b.i. agent who had been trained in investigating terrorism in the 1960's. former tulsa prosecutor. former u.s. attorney. former associate attorney general of the united states. and he knew what he was looking at and he immediately looked at that television set, i'll never forget what he said, that is not a natural gas explosion. that's a car bomb of some sort. he knew instantly what he was dealing with. and on that day and in the subsequent days he led with extraordinary distinction in mobilizing resources leading from the front, being on the front line, was an exceptional act of public leadership fran official who was less than 100 days into his -- from an official who was less than 100 days into his term. equally impressive was the leadership of his wife, our first laidy kathy keating. most of america knows of the memorial service that took place on sunday after the

disaster. i remember the night after the disaster being at the governor's mansion and we were still -- we didn't know how many people had been lost. we didn't know if there were survivors still in the building. there were search teams. we were dealing with a disaster of national -- really, international proportions and kathy keating came to the meeting and said we need to have some sort of service to memorialize the people that had been lost. people are grieving and they want to participate. and i remember thinking at the time, my goodness, how in the world can we ever pull this off? we're dealing with more in an we can deal with, let alone organizing something like that. and yet -- and i made that point. and she said, don't worry. i will take over. and she did. and america -- not just oklahoma city and oklahoma -- were given a moment to mourn, a moment that attracted the president of the united states. billy graham. a national audience and thousands of oklahomans who

simply wanted to get together and pay tribute to those who had lost their lives. it was an exceptional act of public leadership on her part. and the two of them set up a foundation to take care of the educational needs of anyone who had lost a parent, let alone two parents, in the course of that. and that institution still functions till this day. again exceptional leadership. and we've had other moments of tragedy in our country like 9/11 and just as rudy giuliani was, quote, america's mayor on that day, ron norig in oklahoma was america's day. it was an amazing performance as i got together his police and his firefighters and was immediately on the scene and one of the great public servants that i've ever seen. and i would be remiss not to mention my friend behind me, mr. lucas, as he alluded to in his remarks that was his

district office, one building over. that was a place where he was in and out of a lot in the federal building and my task as secretary of state signed by -- assigned by the governor was to work in weab to try to coordinate with the federal government a long-term rebuilding effort. nobody did more to rebuild oklahoma city than frank lucas. . this was not a natural disaster, this was literally an attack on a federal facility in oklahoma city with a unique federal responsibility. those are all things that frank lucas got done not just for the people of his district but the people of our state. frankly, in that he set some precedents that served the people from new york on 9/11 awfully well in addition. the last person i want to mention is the president of the

united states at the time. i'm a pretty good republican and i can't say i voted for bill clinton. but i was very glad he was president of the united states at that moment. nobody helped us more. i will never forget 1:00 in the afternoon, day of disaster, we had moved the governor to a civil defense facility below ground. at the capitol. he was directing affairs there. we got a call from the president of the united states. i did not know it at the time, but they, frank keating and bill clinton had actually gone to school together. they went to georgetown together. frank keating was president of the college -- student body when bill clinton was president of the sophomore class. they knew one another. first thing the president asked was, governor do you have any idea who is responsible for this? there were all sorts of wild reports on television, a lot of speculation. and the governor being a law enforcement professional immediately responded, mr. president, we have no idea.

we do not know who did this. i know you're hearing foreign terrorists, all sorts of things. we don't know yet. it's too chaotic for us to know. president clinton at that point said something that really struck me and struck me more later. he said, well, i hope it wasn't a foreign national. i remember it being almost shocked you that an american had done something thisfall. but then he added profetically as it turned out several years later because if it was we'll be at war someplace in the world within six months. he was absolutely right. he too, understood the dimensions of the tradgedy. in the days ahead, everything -- tragedy. in the days ahead, everything we asked for and all the resources and compassion that a great people like the united states of america and its citizens can muster was immediately at our disposal. i remember president clinton when we announced we were doing

the ceremony, discreetly was approached by a member in his administration, you know, the president would like to be here but we certainly don't want to be here if it's inappropriate. and i said look, i have to go clear that with the governor, but i can tell you i know what frank keating's response is going to be. of course we would welcome the president of the united states. he did, indeed, come. he not only helpeds through -- helped us through it, he helped us emotionally through it. as did the first lady, hillary rodham clinton at the time. also made that journey. and was there to help and comfort people. we may have our political differences from time to time as americans. but in times of tragedy, we stick together. we come together. we pull together and work to help one another. certainly president clinton did that. finally, let me just make this observation. i want -- and this expression of

gratitude. i want to use this occasion to thank the millions and millions of americans who responded with their prayers, with their help, the rescue workers that came, the donations that flowed in from all across the country to help the victims and the families of the victims. that came, frankly from around the world. because we had international help as well. and i want to remind people that whenever they lose faith in the united states of america, or just the shear decency of people , think of the oklahoma city bombing. think of the magnificent performance of this country, not just of the people on the scene. but of the support this country directed toward its fellow citizens in a time of difficulty. and of the many prayers and expressions of good will and condolence from around the world as people rallied in the face of what was unspeakable act of terror.

we had our moment of tragedy, but we have had 20 years of triumph since then. that triumph's not just the try um of the of the -- triumph of the people of oklahoma city, but it's an american triumph and human triumph of enormous dimensions and great consequence . mr. lucas: thank you, congressman cole. i certainly want to acknowledge congressman mullin and congressman bridenstine. now, mr. speaker, i would like to yield to conclude to congressman russell, who has the responsibility of representing that site in the fifth district of oklahoma to conclude with a few comments. congressman russell. congressman russell: thank you, congressman lucas, and to my friends and colleagues. thank you, mr. speaker. on april 19, 1995 i was

defending my country as an officer in the united states army. we were preparing as warriors to defend our country never imagining that an attack would occur in our hometown. among the 168 people that were killed, and the 689 nonfatal fatalities the buildings that were destroyed or damaged in a 16-block radius, the $652 million worth of damage that was caused in my hometown there were a number of brother warriors and sister warriors that were defending their country at their duty stations at the recruiting depots that were contained in the federal building. victoria master sergeant in the

united states army. ben min -- benjamin davis a sarent in the united states marine corps. akisha, airman first class in the united states air force. randolph guzman, captain in the united states marine corps. cart any mccraven, an airman first class in the united states air force. and lola bolden, a sergeant first class in the united states army. never imagining that in their recruiting duties in oklahoma city that they would give their lives in defense of their country. and to my colleagues and to congressman lucas, i would ask that we could observe a moment of silence in memory to all the 168 americans, oklahomans friends, that were killed in this despicable act of terror on our domestic shores. and to all of those that carry

the scars and injuries to this day if we could observe a brief moment of silence. i thank my colleague and friend, congressman lucas, and thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back to my colleague. mr. lucas: mr. speaker there's no way that the oklahoma delegation can express our thanks to the country for the help over the last 20 years. but with this moment of silence just now we ask that everyone, two minutes after 9:00 central time this sunday morning think about those 168 souls those killed, and those who survived, and those who were changed forever. yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from georgia mr. loudermilk, is recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader. mr. loudermilk: thank you, mr. speaker. after the japanese attacks on pearl harbor in 19 -- on december 7 1941, americans from across the nation were driven by a sudden sense of patriotism and they sought ways that they could serve their country. one such patriotic american was young alex mills of concord, north carolina. although alex desperately wanted to serve his nation, at only 13 years old he was too young to join the ranks of thoses of young men and women who were shipping off overseas. determined to not allow his youth to stand between him and doing something significant, young alex served for a way that

he could help his country. learning of a newly organized outfit created to patrol the coastline and borders of our homeland alex quickly enlisted in the civil air patrol. throughout world war ii, the civil air patrol flew -- pilots flew hundreds of patrol missions searching for enemy submarines operating along our coastline. throughout the war the civil air patrol spotted numerous german u boats and after the planes were fitted with bombs, the civil air patrol crews were credited with sinking at least two enemy submarines. recognizing the value of this volunteer force of civilians congress acted to make the civil air patrol the official auxiliary of the united states air force. it 41 years after first joining the civil air patrol alex mills was appointed as the chaplain of civil air patrols' rome composite squadron at the richard b. russell air field in rome, georgia. since taking on the role of

chaplain, alex mills has continued his exemplary service and has risen to the rank of lieutenant colonel. he also has been recognized as the georgia wing chaplain of the year and the southeast region chaplain of the year. having had the honor to serve side by side with lieutenant colonel alex mills during my tenure at the rome squadron, i can attest first hand to his dedication to duty, god and country. i have witnessed the positive impact he has had on many young americans who as he did 74 years ago joined the civil air patrol as a way to serve their nation. on sunday, april 26, i'll have the honor of presenting the congressional gold medal to lieutenant colonel alex mills for his lifetime of service and is one of the few remaining charter members of the civil air patrol. of all those that i have served with during my time in the military and serving in civil air patrol, there are only a few that have had such a positive i

in-- influence on my life and the life of my family. without any reservation i can attest that lieutenant colonel alex mills is one of those individuals. and on behalf of the state of georgia and georgia's 11th congressional district, i recognize and commend lieutenant colonel alex mills for his 74 years of service to god, community, and country. thank you mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall is recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate you making time to be down here with me today. i'd like to begin by asking unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow and further with the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on monday next. and that the order of the house of january 6 2015, regarding morning hour debate, not apply on that day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm down here to talk about the war on coal. and i say the war on coal. people think of that as if we are -- we can actually go and attack a natural resource. i'm not worried about attacking natural resources. i'm worried about the impact it has on american families, and particularly i'm worried about the impact it has on families in my district in georgia, mr.

speaker. you can't see this chart, but it's a chart that represents a section 111-d. it's the language that the president used to create his new carbon emission targets. i'm not saying that congress passed a law to do this, because congress didn't pass a law, the president just decided he was going to do t i'm not saying that the house and senate got together and debated because we didn't get together and debate it. the president just decided this was the way it was going to be, but it's 292 words that were already in statute. the president's turned it into 130-page regulation that he's implementing on the country. hundreds more pages of technical support documents going behind that, and this is what president obama's constitutional law professor had to say. again, this is a regulation that the president, mr. speaker, is

implementing without any action of congress whatsoever. and the harvard law professor who was president obama's constitutional law professor said this in december of last year. he said, to justify the clean power plant, that's the president's energy plan, the e.p.a. has brazenly rewritten the history of an obscure section of the 1970 clean air act that's these 292 words i talked about passed by congress in 1970. . he goes on to say, frustration with congressional inaction cannot justify throwing the constitution overboard to rescue this lawless e.p.a. proposal. mr. speaker a clean air act passed in 1970, and i'll get into some charts that show the successes we have had of previous clean air acts, 19 0,

1990. the president wants to do things differently happen the law of the land allows. and he is frustrated, as described by professor tribe that congress refuses to do what the president wants us to do i'm going to talk about why it is we don't want to do what the president wants us to do we -- it's destructive to the american economy, it's destruct toiv american families. we don't want to do what the president wants to do. he president hasn't come up here to lobby congress, get taos do what he wants us to do. the president, to quote professor tribe, is throwing the constitution overboard to rescue this lawless e.p.a. proposal. we'll come back to professor tribe. i want to talk about it in terms of my constituency mr. speaker. my constituency, i'm right there in kind of the northeastern atlanta suburbs there, it's only two counties, mr. speaker, but they're two of the fastest growing counties in the state of

georgia. they've also just been named two of the healthiest counties in the state of georgia. this is what we're talking about in georgia. this is our georgia public service commission that group of elected officials in charge of keeping energy prices affordable for georgia families. that group that is tasked with keeping energy supplies reliable in georgia that group that is tasked with regulating energy in the state of georgia. it's not the e.p.a., it's not president obama, it's the georgia public service commission. they say this about the president's rule this rule will be unduly burdensome on georgians placing upward pressure on electricity rates, an outcome that's not acceptable to our organization or the citizens we serve. these are not republicans or democrats, mr. speaker. these are folks who are concerned, literally about how families are able to keep the lights on. how do you keep the lights on? we talk about getting the mortgage paid, talk about getting the car note paid. how do you keep the lights on?

georgia public service commission, concerned about the burden of this new rule. the clean power plant that's -- clean power plan that's what his -- what the president calls his plan, it has nothing to do with clean power, it these do with a war on electricity. but it's said the clean power plan is illegal, unfair and unwise. that's the one elected official in georgia tasked with enforcing the laws of the land as they exist in georgia, statewide elected office, call this is plan illegal, unfair, and unwise. not just president obama's constitutional law professor calling it unconstitutional. we hear it from our georgia state attorney general as well. this is from one of our power suppliers in georgia. you may think of power suppliers, of course they want to pollute. that's what those big energy companies do.

nonsense. ogle thorpe power is the group that supplies power to all the electric co-ops in the state. mr. speaker i know you have co-ops in your state as i do in mine, these are citizen-owned utilities. these are citizen-owned companies that make sure the lights stay on. oglethorpe power provides the power to those citizen owned groups. this is not some big investor-owned utility. this isn't some pow brother deucer. this is a group of citizens who represent every single person in the state of georgia who receive our pow they are way. this is what they say, consequently there's substantial probability, bordering on certainty, that oglethorpe power will suffer if the e.p.a. finalizes the proposal in its current form or any substanceablely similar form. mr. speaker, it's a bad idea to do it because congress wasn't involved in it. it's a bad idea, as professor

tribe suggests, to do it because the constitution doesn't allow for it. it's a bad idea because it's unfair and unwise and it's unlawful and it's a bad idea to do it as oglethorpe power says because it's going to burt every single american family, particularly these georgia families that oglethorpe power serves if that goes into effect. mr. speaker who is going to get hit the hardest? i'll use my state of georgia, because i get so tired on this house floor of the -- of pitting one group of folks against another. there's -- there's that part of me mr. speaker that remembers when president obama was first running for office. and he promised to be the president that had the most transparent administration in american history. and he promised to be a uniter, bringing america together as we have not heretofore been

together in recent times. that's not what i see mr. speaker. what i see is division. what i see are politics of division each and every day. so often along economic lines. i would argue what's the right metric is not how much money you're making today, it's how much money you're able to make tomorrow. opportunity is the metric on which we ought to measure. do you have opportunity for tomorrow? do you have choices you can make to make your life better? quoting an energy economist who testified before the energy and commerce committee just this week, mr. speaker he said this. lower income groups will bear the burden of higher energy costs imposed by the e.p.a.'s plan. but will be along the least likely to invest in or benefit from the energy efficiency programs that are -- that the proposed rule envisions. what do you think about that? the president has big plans in this rule, this unlawful rule

this unconstitutional rule, this undebated rule. but he has big plans. and it's two-fold. number one, he's going to get american families to invest in energy efficient products in their home which in theory, mr. speaker, if i'm using less electricity in my home, i'm going to be spending less money on that electricity. so the president's plan is, if i can get families to have more efficient products in their home, i can drive up the cost of electricity to the home but families are still going to be out about the same amount of money. that's not the way the economists see it mr. speaker. if you look at families with their after tax income, less than $10,000 a year, after tax income, less than $10,000 a year. that's not altogether uncommon in the great state of georgia. certainly those are the folks who already have a tough time keeping the lights on. 30% or more of their income on average is dedicated to energy

costs. 30% or more of everything that family has is dedicated to paying their energy costs. this rule proposes to run those costs up dramatically you move up to folk whors making after tax incomes higher than $50,000, you're down below 5% of their income that they're spending on energy cost. the folks who can handle an increased rise in energy prices are also going to be those folks who invest in the more energy efficient system. it's those folks trapped at the bottom of the income ladder, who don't have those opportunities to invest in more nrnl efficient products, who are going to be hit the hardest by rising energy prices. mr. speaker, there's not a man or woman in my district, 700,000 strong not a man or woman in my district who doesn't want to see clean air. but the president's rule isn't about clean air. it's about picking winners and

losers in energy production. the president doesn't like coal he, doesn't like coal miners, he doesn't like coal processors he, doesn't like coal power plants operators. this isn't about clean air. it's a a -- it's about coal. it's going to have an economic impact on constituents in my district. mr. speaker let me go back to the words that folks use. s the depea chamber of commerce. they obviously have an obligation to grow the economy in georgia. let me just tell you you can't pay taxes if you don't have a job. it's an essential point of basic government economics. you need people to work, you need people to be successful because if they are not successful, they cannot pay their taxes. georgia chamber of commerce dedicated to success in our part of the world. they say this. the e.p.a.'s regulations women impose billions of dollars in costs on the united states and georgia's economy. but fail to meaningfully reduce co-2 emissions on a global

scale. if e.p.a. adopts policies that substantially increase the cost of energy, thereby decreasing the competitiveness of the united states, investments and emissions will be sent to other, less efficient countries with higher co-2 emission intensities. as a result, overly restrictive and costly united states policies to reduce emissions will not only be offset around the globe, but could actually result in a net increase. what do you think about that, mr. speaker? what i want you to think about that we just had this conversation in respect to the keystone pipeline. the president vetoed language bipartisan language passed in this house, passed in the senate, build the keystone pipeline. this pipeline has been in the approval process for longer than it took to build the entire hoover dam. the entire hoover dam, start to finish, built faster than we could even get an approval this law wasn't to mandate the building of the pipeline. this law was to mandate that the approval process come to

conclusion. the process still hasn't come to conclusion. the president won't do it. as if, america decides not to build the keystone pipeline, oil will not be harvested in the independent nation of canada. nonsense. canada didn't ask us whether or not they should bring the oil out of the ground. they asked us to help them get the oil to market. they're america's largest trading partner. they said, america will you help us with this pipeline. the answer should have been absolutely yes. if not yes, perhaps the answer could be no. but instead of a yes or no we have seven years of delay. that oil is going to come out of the ground, it's going to be shipped to a port in canada, going to be shipped overseas to china, i promise you it's not going to reduce emissions, it's going to increase emissions because they're not going to process it in china as responseably as we process it here. what's the president asking of us? we're talking about raising the cost of producing goods, again,

just in georgia, between 2005 and 2012, the last seven years mr. speaker we reduced carbon emissions in georgia by 33%. the president's target has georgia needing another 44% in reductions by 2030. 44%. but according to the georgia environmental protection division, again, these aren't the folk whors in charge of polluting the air, these are the folks in charge of protecting the air our georgia e.p.d., our equivalent of the e.p.a. they're tough on polluters they're tough on folk who don't want to be good corporate citizen they say this. c.p.p., the president's proposal, does not provide flexibility to georgia. in fact, it is inflexible and punitive to state that was taken early action. i want you to think about that. if you were sitting around doing nothing, if you didn't come from two of the healthiest counties in the country, as i do, mr.

speaker. if you weren't worried about protecting the planet, about our stewardship responsibilities to the earth if you weren't worried about any of those things, the president will set some targets for you. unwise unlawful, unconstitutional targets but he'll set some targets that you need to achieve. if you have been working as we have in georgia he's still setting targets for you, not giving you credit for what you've done in the past, but setting targets in the future. georgia is number six in the nation of being asked to do the most by the white house in this unwise, unlawful, unconstitutional rule making. let's talk about the dollars and cents that are required here. for the nation, mr. speaker, we're talking about between $360 billion and $480 billion to implement the president's proposal. again, the unlawful, unwise unconstitutional proposal but

the president's proposal, $360 billion to $480 billion. according to economic projections, mr. speaker, that's going to be about a 12% or 13% increase in electricity prices across the country. 12% or 13% increase in utility prices, electricity places across the country. now in georgia that translates into about $400 a year. $400 a year, we have a pretty mild climate in the great state of georgia. about $400 a year. per family. in my district, mr. speaker it's about $94 million a year. you put all of my constituents together, all of those folk whors the boss of the seventh district of georgia together, we're talking about almost $100 million lost to implement the president's plan. lost to implement the

president's plan mr. speaker. now my question is for what? my folks are responsible folks, mr. speaker. they're dedicated to their stewardship responsibilities. they're dedicated to doing the right thing for the right reasons. we're not a district where we try to figure out who is to blame. we're a district where we try to figure out how to fix it. but the current worldwide carbon emissions, again, this isn't about clean air, this is about carbon dioxide in the air. carbon dioxide is in the air, it's a natural part of the air, it's a required part of the air. carbon dioxide emissions across the country, mr. speaker, across the world, rather if we talk about developed nations, these -- we generally talk about the we talk about the organization of economic cooperation, the oecd. the carbon emissions of those developed nations, mr. speaker, are projected to be relatively

flat for the two generational future. two generations from now, still flat. you're not seeing those increase. you look at non-oecd nations, mr. speaker those emissions are projected to double and then triple. from 1990 when we passed the clean air act, you see level eemissions coming from oecd and non-oecd nations. you begin to see those lines diverge and there is no expectation that non-oecd nations will change theirpolicy. there is no escaping this big ball of rock that we are all floating through space on. we are in this tofplgt we will succeed or we will fail together. but for the price tag of $400

per american family for the price tag of $100 million a year, just in my one congressional district, mr. speaker, for the price tag of more than $400 billion a year, that's about 10% of everything we spend in this country. about 10% of the federal budget is the cost of the president's unwise and unlawful regulation. what we get tore that investment of american treasure, what we get for disadvantaging american businesses relative to foreign businesses, what we get for raising the cost of american products so that other products around the globe can be -- can be cheaper what we get for that, golly, mr. speaker, i don't know if you can see it. is this little bitty red line in terms of carbon reductions. what i started here mr. speaker, are metric tons of

carbon being produced, carbon dioxide, being produced around the globe. this is the entire globe here. i have 1990, i have 2010, i have 2020, i have 2030. the benefit of disadvantaging american workers, the benefit of disadvantaging american manufacturers, the benefit of raising prices for every single american family is that the amount of carbon produced on the entire planet will drop the distance of this little bitty red line, mr. speaker. i don't think you can see it. that's 2020. 2030 perhaps the line gets visible enough to see. it's virtually nothing. virtually nothing. the president talks about this unwise unflaul, unconstitutional proposal, as if it's designed to save the world. it's not. it's not designed to save the world. it's not designed to reduce carbon emissions around the globe. it's designed to put coal out of

business in america. we are the saudi arabia of coal mr. speaker. we have coal. we have clean coal. we have coal. now, if we pulled up the charts of the energy information agentcy they are not going to tell you that coal production in america is going to go to zero. it's not. it's fallen off doctor matically. we are putting coal mining families out of business in record numbers. if you go into coal mining country, mr. speaker, it used to be all democrats, all the time. you know there's not one member of this chamber from a democratic party that represents coal country today? because coal miners threw every one of them out. not because they as individuals were bad members, mr. speaker. but because the president was driving those individual families out of business and

those families said, we are doing honorable work. we are doing lawful work. we work hard for a living, and we are providing a national service. they are absolutely right. $500 billion annually in american treasure for virtually no reduction in carbon around the globe. if we were actually going to talk about clean air, mr. speaker, i wish we would, i wish we would get out of the business of picking winners and losers and talk about clean air, i wish we get out of the business of having an ax to groined about energy producers and get to talk about clean air, if we were going to talk about clean air, we talk about things like knocks -- nox and sox. when we passed the clean air act of 1990, and will i remind you, mr. speaker, that was a republican president and a democratic congress, that bipartisan legislation where the president just didn't decide what he wanted to do, he came to congress and rk wh

congresso crt a law, it went after what at that time was so frequently referred to as acid rain, mr. speaker. you get this nigh tron oxide, sulfur oxide in the air. it would come out of the air when it rained. it had an empact around the country. we went after it in the clean air act amendments of 1990. the dark clean line represents the sulfur. the yellow line represents the nitrogen. 1990 1995, 2000 2005 2010, 11 and 12. we came together as a nation, mr. speaker, we targeted these pollutants in the air, and we changed the way we produce power in this contry. we didn't abolish coal. we made it cleaner coal. we didn't abolish electric power come interesting these big power plants, we changed the way the crubbers and smokestacks worked and we -- and scrubbers and smokestacks worked and we positively impacted air quality

in this country. we didn't pass the clean air act of 1990 because we had an ax to grind. we passed the clean air act of 1990 because we had a problem to solve. as you can see by this chart, we solved it. we didn't just spend money to feel better about it. we solved it. we weren't just trying to pick winners and losers, we were trying to solve a problem. mr. speaker i want to quote the associated press. they are talking about coal in this country. talking about the president's rule. talking about carbon production. they say this. they say it's leaving this nation's shores but not the planet. the fossil fuel trade which has soared under president obama, soared because we had record exploration going on on private lands. as you know mr. speaker, the president has completely eliminated exploration on public lands. those permits are not going out the door. private exploration has soared under president obama's

administration. the fossil fuel trade threatens to undermine his strategic -- strategy, to reduce the glasses blamed for global arming. it also reveals a little discussed side effect of countries acting alone on a global issue. as the u.s. tries to set a global example by reducing demands for fossil fuels at home, american energy companies are sending more dirty fuels than ever to other parts of the world exports ottawa billions of dollars each year. let me go back, mr. speaker. when we were working together, when we were working together in congress, working together with the administration, we changed the way we produced energy. we changed the way we burned this coal to drastically reduce the pollutants coming from that coal. in a class example of federal overreach mr. speaker, again acting alone. unlawful unwise, and

unconstitutional the president said, i want to do more. and in doing more, according to the a.p., which is no conservative defender in doing more what the president's doing is telling these energy companies don't try to do better. don't try to be cleaner. we are going to put you out of business in america so bring these products out of the ground and ship them overseas. mr. speaker, where do you think our overseas competitors rank in terms of reducing these pollutants? where do you think? where do you think india ranks? where do you think china ranks? where do you think these nations competing with american workers rank? do you think they are producing it as cleanly as we were in 2012? maybe you think they are a little worse like we were in 2000. maybe you think they are as bad as we started way back in 1990. nonsense. they are way back here off the

chart all together. if you believe in a stewardship responsibility to the planet if you believe we have a multigenerational obligation to care for our environment, then you know that only nations with a robust economy have a robust environmental protection program. you think about that, mr. speaker. you will not find a single nation living in poverty that has advanced environmental protections. you can't afford to care about the environment if you can't keep the lights on. you can't afford to care about the environment if you can't feed your families. we do both in this country, mr. speaker. in the name of protecting the environment, the president is forcing these natural resources overseas which has the combined negative effect of polluting the planet to a greater degree and

making american workers competitive to a lesser degree. you're shipping cheap energy overseas which makes that manufacturing more productive. you're raising energy prices in america which makes our manufacturing less productive. mr. speaker, i'm all about making a difference. i'm all about solving a problem. the president wants to spend half a trillion dollars half a trillion dollars more than 10% of what we spend in this country every year, focused solely solely, solely on reducing carbon emissions by the side of this line that you can't even see. and the people who are going to pay the price for that, literally the price, are going to be american citizens and

higher energy bills. and american workers with fewer job opportunities. we have two models that we can choose from, mr. speaker. we can choose from the model we use in the clean air asket 1990 where we came together in a bipartisan way and we solved a problem together. we identified the problem. we solved a problem. and we have measurable results. or we can go it alone and by alone i don't mean america going it alone. i mean the administration and e.p.a. going it alone, unlawful unwise, unconstitutional. spend a half a trillion dollars more than the size of our budget deficit this year. making us less competitive trapping more american families in poverty to achieve absolutely no result at all. mr. speaker i'll end where i

began. an absur section, section 11-d 292 words that were never intended to allow the president to do what the president's doing. where the president's own constitutional law professor says the president's desires cannot justify throwing the constitution overboard to rescue this 130-page proposal. this 130-page proposal, which promises to do virtually nothing to change global emissions but promises to disadvantage the american economy in a global economy. mr. speaker, we can solve our energy challenges. we can find energy independence in this country, energy security in this contry. we can solve our environmental stewardship responsibilities we

are doing things cleaner and bert today than we ever have. and we will continue to do so. mr. speaker, the value of divided government as it is today the value of folks who hold different ideas as we do today, two ends of pennsylvania avenue, mr. speaker. the president and the democratic party on one end. republicans and congress on the other. the value of that divided government is that it allows us to do the big things, the big and necessary things. if it's all republicans or all democrats folks just tend to try to jam their own ideas through whether america likes it or not. that is not the way to build a stronger nation. divided government requires not just allows, but requires that we come together to solve problems. every time the president goes it alone, every time congress goes it alone, we miss an opportunity

to come together and solve a problem. to justify the clean power plan the president's power plan, the e.p.a. has brazenly rewritten the history of an obscure section of the 1970 clean air act. frustration with congressional inaction cannot justify throwing the constitutional overboard to rescue this lawless e.p.a. proposal. . we have an opportunity to do better, mr. speaker. and we have the ability, with the men and women in this chamber, mr. speakehe men anden who serve this entire institution, this entire nation good men and women on both sides of the aisle who care about american workers and who care about the american economy and who care about not just america's environment but the global environment. we can come together and we can do better but this proposal by

the president is not it. mr. speaker, i hope you will help me to encourage all our colleagues to reject this proposal, rein in this overreach and then to work together to do those things that matter to our constituents, our bosses back home. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair announces the speaker's appointment pusuant to 22 u.s.c. 276-b and the order of the house on january 6 2015, of the following member on the part of the house to the canada-united states interparliamentary group. climb mr. huizenga of michigan, chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a grand jury subpoena

issued by the united states district court for the central district of california. after consultation with the office of general council regarding the subpoena, i will make the determinations required under rule 8. signed, sincerely gabriella marquez, district director for the honorable tony cardenas. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate my friend, rob woodall so much. what clarity. we lost a good man when john lender didn't run again and we gained a good man when rob woodall ran for that seat. so it's a good day. there's a matter of concern, let

me just say this. we have forgotten god. we have forgotten the gracious hand which preserves us in peace. and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us. and we vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the god that made us. it behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended power to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness. now there's some people these days -- these days that say, it's not appropriate to mention

god. that that has no place in government. yet the very god that i speak of and those very words that i spoke are not from me. they are from 152 years ago abraham lincoln didn't just say those words, he made that his presidential proclamation. on march 30, 1863 he called for the nation to have a national day, and these are his words, of humiliation, fasting and prayer he made that official proclamation. so was sometimes my office starts getting calls if i

mention the three letter word that some find to be such a heinoused were to use on the house floor. even though it was one of the most used and most called upon names, certainly in our congress for the first 150, 175 years or so the bible was the most quoted book for most of our history. so the problem is those people that will call and email, irate about a member of the united states congress saying we have forgotten god, we've forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us and we have vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. that was abraham lincoln that said those and he didn't just say them, they were an official proclamation of the united

states of america. so this day and time, it's more popular to issue executive orders as if one person in our government were god. but abraham lincoln knew better. two years later he was assassinated he could have done so much to bring this country together after the worst war the country had ever faced. and yet his life was cut short 150 years ago. an extraordinary man. ex-trared noir time -- extraordinary time. but he tells us with his written word that we have forgotten god. he said, we're too proud to pray to the god that made us. some find that offensive.

some think the government should be god. the government should tell people you can see this doctor but you can't see this doctor. this doctor may be able to heal you but you can't see this doctor. why? because we're the government and we're the new god. seniors look, we know you had plans for health care to last longer but sorry, you don't get as good a health care as you did five years ago. in my own family, my dad is not going to get the same health care my mother did that kept her alive 15 more years after her tumor was discovered. as dad told me last week, i'm not going to -- i'm not going to be able to have the health care your mother got because of medicare and all the cuts.

i can't even have the option to do what we did for your mother. well that's what happens when the government becomes god. unfortunately if we were going to have the government become the god of the united states, it would be nice if the government were a little more truthful, little more honest, little more just. but we -- one of the major problems that's been revealed recently is the fact that department of homeland security has lied to a united states district judge in texas. he was told that because he was going to issue an injunction and

was issuing an injunction that there would be no three-year amnesties provided that the president spoke into being and after he spoke into being the new law overriding with his very oral words the laws that were passed by the house and senate, signed into law by other presidents, disregard those. then the secretary of homeland security jay johnson, wrote memos, memos overriding laws that were worked on in subcommittee, committee, brought to the floor of the house, debated, fussed over, eventually voted and approved in the house. debated fussed over, eventually

passed in the senate, signed into law by another president, but disregard that. because the government is god now. we don't need to pray to anybody except washington these days. well some of us believe the government is not god. nobody wants a dishonest god. and we've had too much of that from washington. so with recent revelations about the -- about department of homeland security and its failures many americans have become gravely concerned that their actions and performance is causing additional misrepresentations and that's why it was critically important that we have a thorough investigation of the department of homeland security. i know there were

misrepresentations by the prior director of homeland security before our committee. talked about those previously. but the american people deserve to be protected by their government, not spied on, not lied to, not paid to have department of homeland security ignore the law. so there were 22 of us that just signed a letter going to the controller general of the -- the -- the controller general of the united states, some pronounce it comptroller because that's how it's spelled. as my late english teacher mother told me many years ago that maybe the way it's spelled, you look in the dictionary,

which i was forced to do, then you'll see that it's actually pronounced, the number one pronunciation is controller but buzz of usage, i don't know hadn't looked recently, maybe people -- maybe number one now is comptroller but it didn't used to be. but to the comptroller general dedaro. the letter that 22 of us sent yesterday. as you know on november 20 2014, the secretary of the department of homeland security jay johnson, issued a series of memoranda affecting federal immigration law, including in the new d.h.s. policy directives in order to extend and expand the existing deferred action for childhood aprivels program as well as in order to -- as well as an order to establish a new program that provides for work authorization permits to an

estimated five million undocumented immigrants residing in the united states. the program was turn -- termed the deferred action for parents of americans in lawful permanent residents or d pambings. -- or dapa. u.s. citizenship and immigration services is the federal agency that adjudicates applications for immigration benefits this agent's website claims a work force of 19,000 people operating throughout 223 offices worldwide with an annual operating budget of $4 billion. this agency is very unique from any other agencies. according to its own f.y. 2016 uscis budget request, 96.8% of the agency's annual operating budget comes from fees collected from applicants for most types of immigration benefits.

from petitions to sponsor relatives or employees, to replacement cards naturalization applications. these fee-based revenues appear to be considered permanently appropriated mandatory funds compared to annual discretionary appropriations which apply to federal agencies. as a result, this permanently appropriated mandatory spending a-- allotment for uscis falls outside the annual appropriations process. while congress determines the cat goifers aliens that are to be admitted in the united states, it does not always set the fees uscis charges or constructively control how uscis allocates its resources. this fee generated portion of its annual budget translating to $3 nt 874 billion in f.y. 2016,

appears to be completely fungible. that is this money raised for one purpose can perhaps be used for other purposes. this arrangement creates the potential for uscis to, in effect, creecree ate slush funds for other purposes. and skim off congressionally authorized fees imposed on legal immigrants and their sponsors in order to fund programs that may not be specifically authorized by congress. mr. joseph the chief financial officer of uscis testified in a senate hearing on march 3 of 2015 that the agency determines the fees it charges based on a practice known as activity-based costing. thus transaction fees are proportional to the amount of time and resources to fulfill that transaction. however records indicate that uscis has a carryover balance from excess revenues at the end

of f.y. 2014 of approximately $1.27 billion. mr. moore claimed that he seeks to maintain a rolling reserve balance of about $600 million to cover unexpected costs and surge activity. he further stated that funds from this account helped uscis handle early spending in response to the executive actions. eventually new fees paid by illegal immigrant applicants are intended to replenish that account, plus cover all the new costs. what is not clear is why or how the agency has built up reserves of more than twice the amount it says it aims to keep for contingency requirements. this draws scrutiny for how long this practice has occurred, for what reasons, what can and cannot be done

with the money and ultimately how congress can effectively conduct oversight. experts refer to this arrangement where an agency can skim off or tax certain types of applications in order to fund others as cross cross subsidization. currently fees from legal immigrants and their sponsors subsidize refugees and asylum applicants or applications, military naturalizations, the anti-fraud division, and other activities, with other activities being broadly defined. so we go on and ask for the controller general to audit the department of homeland security because we haven't gotten truthful answers we haven't gotten complete answers it. appears we have a shadow government in existence that can go across the river and lease or purchase spend tens

or hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars, we don't know, without any accountability to anybody. it moves toward being like a kafka to move elf just a completely -- novel of just a complete uh-uh accountable mammoth government -- pletsly unaccountable mammoth government that no individual can ever take on. that was never the intention of the founders, nor those who have given their lives throughout the history of this, the greatest country in the history of the world. so we're calling for an audit, we're asking the g.a.o. to audit uscis and find out critically needed answers. homeland security agencies continue to be hindered by leadership that breaks the law and ignores the constitution

while using highly suspect spending practices. it's got to stop. and we got to know exactly what they're doing so that we can get them back acting within the constitutional requisites. because the department of homeland security has been so obsessed, as directed by the president, with having open borders, bringing in illegal immigrants, as one border patrolman told me, we in homeland security are called logistics by the drug cartels, the gangs, all those people that bring in illegal aliens into the united states. like the commercial that's widely seen on television.

logistics they're referring to. are the fact -- or the fact that they can bring people into the united states illegally the drug cartels, the gangs, for a huge whopping fee, and once they get them into the united states, they can count on homeland security to spend this money that many trying to do things the right way, the legal way, are paying to have their immigration, their visa application expedited. we don't know where those expedited fees are going but their applications are not really being expedited. so it would appear probably the homeland security department is taking fees that are being paid for one thing by people wanting to do things the right way, the legal way the constitutional

way, and homeland security is subverting the law and the constitution and spending it on people who keep coming in, pouring in naturally illegally, because they're taking care -- taken care of. homeland security will ship them around the country. all you got to do is come in. we'll give you a hearing date. some years in the future. ship you off and you don't worry about showing up for your hearings. how long can a country last doing these kind of absurd governmental actions? i mean, it's insane. the book that will be written about the rise and fall of the united states will be very easy to write. these things are not new, they're very predictable. that when a country starts ignoring the law, then it

becomes lawless and it's not long before the people take up that position and the country becomes a terrible place to live. this country became the greatest country in the history of the world. more freedoms, more personal assets, and now we see that being frittered away by a government that's being allowed to do so and at the same time the head of the government is still, you know, he may have around 50% approval rating, and it's once again making very clear the olded a ac is true -- old adage is true, democracy ensures a people are governed no better than they deserve. and america as it sits, at

least 50% sits on their hands they're ok with total disregard of the constitution. there were more, i believe, college students that could name the three stooges but could not name the three branches of government. and they're eligible to vote. well, if that's the way you educate the generations coming up to vote, then you will once again get the government you deserve. well, because the department of homeland security has been taking funds paid by people trying to do things legally, do them the right way, and subverting them for uses for those who are wanting to act illegally or have acted illegally they haven't been able to pay enough attention to securing our homeland. which was originally their

charter. i didn't think we needed a department of homeland security. i thought it was another huge bureaucracy that was created before i got to congress in the name of, gee, let's help all these agencies work together. it hasn't done. that just headed another level of bureaucracy. so we get this report, this is from the "washington times" dated tuesday, april 14, the islamic state terror group is operating a camp in the northern mexican state of chihuahua, just eight miles from the united states border. citing sources that include a, quote, mexican army field grade officer and a mexican federal police inspector unquote, the conservative watchdog group reported that the islamic state known as isis or isil is organizing only a few miles from el paso, texas, in a

neighborhood of juarez. judicial watch sources said that coyotes working for the notorious waurezz cartel are smuggling islamic state terrorists across the united states is border between the new mexico cities of santa theresa and sunland park, as well as through the poorest border between acala and fort hancock, texas. quote, these specific areas were targeted for exploitation by isis because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces and the relative safe havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was already ongoing. unquote. "judicial watch" reported. mexican intelligence sources say the islamic state intended to exploit the railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of santa theresa, new mexico.

quote, the sources also say that isis has spotters located in the east mountains of new mexico largely managed by the bureau of land management, i would submit mismanaged, but to assist with terrorist border crossing operations, unquote, " judicial watch" reported. isis is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities, the white sands missile range, government facilities and -- in new mexico, fort bliss and the electrical power facilities in new mexico. well there were some reports then that, oh, "judicial watch" had it wrong. there's really nobody from isis this mexico, there's no threat -- in mexico, there's no threat. and then this report came out today from our friends at "judicial watch," april 16

2015. responding to "judicial watch" report earlier this week of isis activity along the mexican border, federal bureau of investigations supervisors called a special meeting at the u.s. consulate in jaurezz. a high-level intelligence source, who must remain unanimous for safety reasons, an let me insert paraphernalia thetically, what that means is, if you don't get that, and i sure do,ecse i have people tell me about problems in the executive branch and homeland security, justice, intelligence , and what we find is this administration has prosecuted more people they called whistleblowers than every administration put together in the history of the country. and what i know is if you have

information that exposes corruption or illegal or improper action by leaders in this administration, they're coming after you and calling you whist blower and they'll con -- whistleemployeer and they'll convene a grand jury as they've done they're coming after you if can you expose impropriety in this government. so that's why this says what it does in the article. the meeting was convened specifically to address a press strategy to deny judicial watch's accurate reporting and identify who is providing information to "judicial watch." f.b.i. supervisory personnel met with mexican army officers and mexican federal police

officials, according to "judicial watch's" intelligence source. the f.b.i. liaison officers regularly assigned to mexico were not present at the meeting and conspicuously absent were representatives from the department of homeland security. it's not clear why d.h.s. did not participate. again paranthetically to the article, since i've known of the secretary of homeland security not being truthful in testifying before our judiciary committee then if i were the f.b.i., and i were trying to get to the bottom of something the last people i would tell are people at homeland security at the top. i trust the ones i know at the bottom. but not the ones at the top. so perhaps the head of the f.b.i.'s realizing, we have such big problems at homeland

security. for example, when i complain to homeland security, secretary janet napolitano, you have given a secret security clearance to a person who was a featured speaker about the ayatollah khomeini being the man of vision for the 20th century, a man that thinks the holyland foundation convicted of over 100 counts of supporting terrorism was improperly prosecuted, who ended up tweeting last august that the caliphate was -- it was going to happen. so you might as well get used to it. . i wouldn't trust them either, the f.b.i. apparently doesn't. publicly, the u.s. denies that isis is operating in the southern region.

but the rapid deployment says orse. a mexican federal field officer and mexican officer were among those who confirmed to "judicial watch" that isis is operating a camp around el paso, texas. the area situated just west of ciud dambings juarez in the mexican state of chee waugh what. -- chihuahua. it targets the new mexico towns of columbus for easy access to the united states. the same knowledgeable sors -- sources confirmed. during the course of a joint operation last week, mexican orme and federal law enforce. officials discovered documents in arabic and urdu as well as plans of fort bliss, the sprawling military installation that houses the first armored division. muslim prayer rugs were recovered with the documents during the operation.

so the administration can deny, they can say, oh, this is these crazy people in congress, or judicial watch, when the truth is the more time that goes on, the more we're proved right on everything judicial watch has been claiming, the things we have been asserting, the things we have been saying we have to wake up about. because this is a time of danger. but mr. speaker, going back to the original point, this is the danger that arises when government begins to think of itself as god and infallible and it's time for those who think that to fall. it's time for the people to weigh up and demand better because the minute a majority of american people demand better government, they will get it. with that, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. gohmert: at this time i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

acordingly the house standscognizes the gentleman from nebraska. mr. smith. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 1105, the at the time tax repeal act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to stand here today. i rise in support of repealing the estate tax. repealing this death tax is a

top priority for nebraskans, farmers, ranchers, and small business owners. not just nebraska's farmers, ranchers, and small business owners but folks all around the country. agriculture, particularly raising cattle and crops such as corn, is a land and capital intensive process. these nebraskans aren't sitting on piles of cash. their assets are the land and the equipment they use to help feed our nation and feed the world. they pay income taxes on what they earn, and they pay high property taxes on the land on an annual basis. they take great pride in this work and want their children and grandchildren to continue in their livelihoods. we shouldn't have to jump through the hoops to ensure their descendents can continue their work when they pass on. the death tax doesn't penalize the wealthiest americans. they probably don't even feel that penalty. they can plan their estates and give away their wealth as they see fit.

it penalizes those who have worked all their lives and reinvested in their family businesses to ensure their families and neighbors have every opportunity to be hardworking taxpayers. i certainly urge a aye vote to give growing opportunity in the u.s. and support that growing opportunity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, it appears that the -- bipartisan good feeling of the last few weeks are done. after reaching across the aisle to pass important legislation like the doc fix, my republican colleagues are back at their ole tricks of handing out tax breaks to the few at the expense of the many. today's vote to repeal the estate tax is just the republicans' last attempt to tilt the u.s. tax code in favor of the ultrawealthy campaign donors. this week's target is the estate tax, a tax i would mention dreamed up by and championed by teddy roosevelt, the same guy the republicans like to hold up as one of the greatest the party ever produced.

to help the rich has gone too far. this repeal of the estate tax is nothing more than a massive unfunded tax break for a small sliver of the -- of america's wealthiest families. and is usually the case, this repeal would do nothing to help hardworking middle class families. in nebraska, 52 households would benefit while there are 202,000 people living in poverty. the fact of the matter is the estate tax is only paid for by about 5400 families or the top .2% of the states in the country. the estates worth less than $5.4 million pay nothing. and what is the cost of providing a tax break to the top 5,000 families? a quarter of a trillion dollars.

$269 billion. these are the deficit hawks that were talking last week about we got to worry about the deficit, the deficit, the deficit. they are standing here with a straight face putting $269 billion more on the deficit. instead, we should be using the money to extend the child tax credit. or the earned income tax credit. tax credits that would actually help main street america. the real drivers of the american economy. or we could fund universal prek or build new bridges and roads or provide free community college to nine million people. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try to tell you the estate tax hurts family farmers. and my colleague who began this debate is talking about that, mr. speaker. they tell you the estate tax forces farmers to liquidate in order to pay the estate tax. well pressed to provide examples

as we did, family farms being forced to liquidate, my republican colleagues pointed to a 15,000 acre farm they say had to be broken up for the estate tax. let me put that into context. most people live in sitous don't know how big that is. that's 15,000 acres is the equivalent of 23.5 square miles. that's a five by five square mile farm. that's more than the island of manhattan. manhattan isn't that big. and it's -- which is home to a million people. i think most of the people who work hard are pressed to believe that 23 square miles of the family farm. as a farm at the very top of the income scale experience unprecedented wealth and prosperity, some may call the second guilded age. republicans are helping the rich get richer. they want to talk about we are going to help the middle class and we are going -- what are

theying to? shoveling a quarter of a trillion dollars out the door to the richest. repealing the estate tax will surely sow the seeds of the a permanent aristocracy in this country. we learned from britain what a permanent aristocracy gets you. so we are prepared to take this vote, i would ask my colleagues, whose side are you on? are you on the side of working families and communities across this country who are struggling to pay the bills? or are you on the side of the ultrawealthy heirs who don't feel they need to pay taxes on the millions and billions that they were handed by their ancestors. wealth has never been taxed. that land the accumulation of wealth in it, has never been taxed. now, i vote for the working middle class, and i hope that you-all vote no. i reserve the balance of my time . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from nebraska is

recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to allow mr. brady of texas to manage the time for the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i appreciate the gentleman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i thank the gentleman from nebraska for his leadership on ending this terrible tax. can you imagine working your whole life to build up a family-owned business or a farm and then upon your death uncle sam swoops in and takes nearly half of what you spent a lifetime building up for your children and grandchildren. can you imagine in this case, my friend from washington talked about this was a farm that had been in this family since the 1880's, five generations. it didn't start that size. it started small. they built up over years and years and generations and generations. when the young woman went back to texas, she worked up here, went back to texas to settle her

aunt's estate. she and her brother were forced to sell off 2/3 of the farm that they had had for five generations. they had to sell off 2/3 of it to pay uncle sam. just to try to keep some small portion of what their family had worked so hard to dofment these are real life examples of how the death tax is the wrong tax at the wrong time and hurts the wrong people. it's the number one reason family-owned businesses and farms aren't passed down to the next generation. it is at its heart an immoral tax. the and it is a tax ---and it is an attack on the american dream. especially more so for our newest start-ups in america, women and minority-owned businesses, building wealth for the first time hoping that they can create a nest egg, that they can create a business for their children and grandchildren, so they have greater opportunities in this great contry. -- country. i really want to thank my

democrat leader, sponsor democrat, congressman sanford bishop of georgia for his leadership to repeal the death tax and his belief that you shouldn't punish success. i want to thank my colleague on the ways and means committee, representative kristi noem, long time champion, congressman mack thorn berrirk and former colleague of mine on the ways and means committee former representative hulshof, who carried this legislation for so long. the superrich they don't pay this tax. they have a legion of lawyers and tax planners they have charitable trusts and foundations. they never pay this tax. these are family owned, hardworking, risk taking determined americans who are building their business, their farm, their ranch. these are not, as we'll hear today, the paris hiltons and robber barons of the teddy ruse investigate days -- roosevelt days. they are often forced back for a

loan or cruelly forced to sell their land and business just to satisfy thistist ---the i.r.s. this is about income and equality, but it ourns out according to the federal reserve, former vice chairman, that only only 2% is related to what people inherit. in america, turns out we do build our prosperity. we pull ourselves up in prosperity. some people say, look, this thing generates 200-plus billion dollars. let me put this in perspective. for all the damage it does, for our family owned businesses and farms, the damage it will do to our women-owned businesses and minority-owned businesses building wealth, it generates less than two days of federal spnd spending a year. in a day, this is the basic question. is this your money and your hard work, or is this the government's money? who has a claim over all the years you spent working? and why at the end of the day

are we punishing success? so look let's give children let's give our families their shot at the american dream. and a better nation than the one we inherited. that's why today we rise to bury the death tax once and for all. with that mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas proifs. -- reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i remind the gentleman from texas that 292 households in texas will do nothing for the 4.4 million people living in texas's poverty. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. thompson. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of estate tax reform and in strong opposition to this wrongfully and inaccurately titled death tax repeal act. whenever you hear somebody said

death tax, know right away they are not talking about public policy and they are not talking about tax reform. they are talking about politics. there is no such thing as a death tax. you won't find those words anywhere at all in the tax code. it's partisan jargon. after you die, you don't have to pay taxes. you don't have to take out the garbage. you don't get called for jury duty anymore when you're dead, you're debt. so there is no such thing as a death tax. today my republican colleagues are pursuing a full repeal of the estate tax under the guise of helping family farms and small businesses. i wish this were the case. but the rhetoric is simply disingenuous when you look at the policy. i agree that the estate tax is a real issue for family farmers and for ranchers. the first bill i introduced when i came to congress was a bill to reform the estate tax.

folks in my district where farmland values have reached as high as $300,000 an acre are often land rich and cash poor. there are middle class people who work their land every day and pay taxes on the income they earn from that work. they aren't people who the majority's bill is designated or designed to help. their full repeal is not the answer, it costs too much money. it's not paid for. $269 billion not paid for. and it helps people who don't need the government's help. a more commonsense and targeted approach would be to pass the bill that i referenced earlier. my bill exempts farmlands and related assets from estate tax as long as the family that inherits the farm continues to farm the land. . they stop farming the land, the tax kicks backs in.

it addresses some of the issues the farmers have today. the high volume of farmland we are losing, more than an acre of farmland is lost every minute of every day. it's important that we help farmers preserve farmland for future generations which will benefit our food supply and our environment but it needs to be done the right way. so once this political exercise is over, i hope we can get down to business and work together on a proposal that's actually aimed at protecting our family farms and our family-owned small businesses. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: yielding myself 15 seconds. i know the gentleman from california is sincere but his approach was tried before. it failed so miserablely to protect farms it was repealed, i think, three years later. no more gimmicks. let's help these family farms

and businesses. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a gentleman who understands the importance of family-owned farms and businesses and rewarding success, the gentleman from wisconsin mr. duffy. mr. duffy: i appreciate the gentleman from yielding. i come from america's dairy land, central and northern part of wisconsin and we have a lot of small dairy farms. 300 500, maybe 1,000 acres of small family farms and this death tax when dad dies isn't paid by dad because he's gone but the kids who inherit the farm are the ones who pay that tax. and they end up not being able to pay it so what do they do? they sell to the corporate farm. repealing the death tax is the ability to keep the american family farm and not transfer these farms to the big corporate conglomerates. if you want to stand with the little guy, let's repeal this thing. but it's not just farms. i have a family in my community in wisconsin that employs

hundreds of families. they're a manufacture. family-owned business. they asked me not to use their name. but they understand that this tax if two or more of them die at the same time, they can't pay it. and so what they would be forced to do is sell the business, which would more than likely mean they're going to lose these jobs to some other part of the country or some other part of the world. so now this family, because they love their community they love the people that work in their company, many for 20 and 30 years, what they won't do is they won't travel together. they won't fly together. they won't drive together because god forbid if there was an accident and two of them die they have to sell a major employer in our community. they don't travel together. family members. because of this tax. i hear my friends across the aisle talk about this helping the big wealthy guy. i agree with the gentleman from texas who has done such great work on this bill. they don't pay this tax.

they don't pay. they have great lawyers, great estate planners. it's the guys in the middle that are -- that are employing folks in our community that pay this tax. that means jobs for middle class americans. so i think we should all stand up in this house and we should stand with the middle-class americans, the middle-income americans and let's vote to repeal this bill to make sure we have a vibrant, prosperous middle class in america. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i'd like to remind the gentleman from wisconsin that 63 households will benefit in his state. there are 618,000 people living at the poverty level. that's $18,000 for a family of four. now, one of the things about these kinds of debates is the political rhetoric gets a little overheated. if you die and you have this great big business you have five years to pay that tax.

you don't have to pay it the day that they bury the body of your grandfather or your mother, your father, whoever. you have five years to pay it, and then it's -- 10 years deferred. so you have 15 years before that tax has to be paid. it isn't like somebody shows up at the house when you're having the reception after the funeral and says, here's the money or we're taking your property. that's not what happens in this country. we have laid it out to give people time to figure out how to do it financially. anybody who has that much money probably has enough money to actually hire a financial consultant, it would seem to me mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to mr. pascrell the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pascrell: i heard better stories mr. speaker, in the bada binge club in new jersey. i'm -- bada bing club in new jersey. i'm listening to the accounts of all these poor people. let me tell you what we're

talking about here. you see this big chart? that's 99.85% that get nothing out of this legislation in the united states of america and here's .15% get $270 billion of a tax cut. here, let me use a magnify glass so we can see what we're talking about here. the orange slash right there. you're telling me that helps the common good? my friends on the other side of the aisle -- and when i use the word friends, i mean it. recently take it they're talking about the lack of wage growth in this country yet here we are today considering legislation that will add, mr. speaker $294.8 billion to the

deficit for people who don't work at all. this whole idea that the estate tax hurts middle-class americans in income that's already been taxed is simply not true. much of this income has never been taxed. repealing the estate tax in full would result in a massive tax cut for the wealthiest >> recorded house proceedings earlier today, we leave it to take you to a live briefing from the pentagon. >> almost two months ago i took the oath of office as secretary of defense and since then i've been working to make the priorities that i set out for the department when i was sworn in progress. as i said on my first day as secretary of defense mitigating circumstance first priority is to help the president make the best possible national security

decisions and then to implement those decisions. my second priority is to ensure the strength and health of our wonderful personnel around the world and my third is about the future our people and our technology. and to think outside of our five-sided box here. to achieve those priorities we'll travel to afghanistan and kuwait, american personnel working on two important missions there, worked with congress to secure the resources we need to protect the country and continue to build the force of the future and get stability in the defense budget. spoken with our partners in the state department and other agencies about working together in new ways and on new endeavors and visited with allies and partners both here in washington and just last week in the asia pacific. i met with our men and women in uniform around the country and

abroad to say thank you and to make sure that all of our people past, present, and future are treated with dignity and respect. the work continued this week for example, we had productive discussions with the iraqi prime minister and the iraqi defense minister about u.s.-iraq security partnership and the real progress we're making in the campaign against isil. i was upfront in our meetings about how lasting victory over isil requires inclusive governance in baghdad and respect for local populations in all areas liberated from isil control. and it will continue next week. on wednesday i'm going to speak with ka debts and midship nep washington about sexual assault prevention and response and then i'm going to meet with battalion andbury gade level first responders to get their

perspective on both preventing sexual assault and on combating retaliation. next week, i'll travel to california to silicon valley, deliver a lecture at stanford university on the future of technology, innovation and cybersecurity. and then i'll meet with some technology executives out there to discuss how we can work together better. much more to say, but i'll -- i'm open to questions on any topic whatsoever you may have. before i do that let me just tell you how much i appreciate what you do every day, the role you play in our society and the role you play in this building. i've worked in the pentagon for many years and we all really count on you to explain to our citizens and the world what we're doing to defend our country. on occasion, i understand, to

hold us to account. but i know it is all with the best of intentions and i thank you. now i'll turn things over to marty. >> thank you mr. secretary. i'll add a point of two of emphasis coming out of our meeting with prime minister abbati. trends are moving in the right direction. there remains a lot of hard work in integrating their militias under state command and control as iraq continues to prepare its forces to sustain momentum against isil. the efforts of prime minister abatti in the tikrit offensive are a good step. we'll continue to consult with ex-leadership as they plan and conduct their operations. i'm encouraged by the commitment of the coalition. you may know that there's been an addition of 300 australian troops and 100 new zealand troops to the training mission and that will certainly contribute to the outcomes we all seek.

they join a notable list of international partners to our building partnership capacity mission, including the united kingdom, spain germany denmark, the netherlands and of course the united states. around the globe, i can tell you our men and women in uniform are focused and doing what the nation needs them to do. the security environment remains as dynamic as it's ever been and remain refussed on ensewering our troops have the leadership, training and resources to accomplish the tasks we ask of them. with that, i'm happy to answer your questions. >> i'll call on reporters. >> a question for each of you if i may. on yemen, al qaeda forces have captured a major airport sea port and oil terminal today. i'm wondering if you think that the focus on the rebels has unintended consequence of presenting new opportunities for alsigh kentucky da in yemen?

or do they give you any pause about the wisdom of the saudi campaign and the u.s. support for that. and for general dempsey, you were talking about iraq and today there's been reports that the isil forces have made important advances on ramadi, having already captured some smaller places around ramadi. i'm wond forget you feel that ramadi is in danger of falling and what does it say about the way ahead, the difficulty of the way ahead for the iraqi forces in anbar. >> so yemen first. i've seen reports to that effect also. what that suggests is that yes aqap provides opportunity in the environment created by the turmoil in yemen. aqap just to remind you is a branch of al qaeda that is shown

a particular determination to attack us in our homeland and is therefore of serious concern to us. we continue to watch them and take action against aqap. it's obvious that it's easier to do our counterterrorism operations against aqap when there's a settled government in yemen. there is not that now. we for that reason and other reasons hope that there will be we're trying to work with others in that direction. but in the meantime, we need to, and do, through other means prork tect ourselves against aqap because they are dangerous and there are things we can do. to act against them. and we are. >> on iraq, the -- let me make a distinction between military offense that's going up north of baghdad, up through dialla and

into tikrit and eventually up near kirkuk. the offensive north of baghdad has been deliberate, measured, steady progress. al anbar has always been kind of pockets of isf, iraqi security forces, and pockets of isil. so it's been a much more dynamic back and forth. so this latest attack on ramadi is yet another indication that what the government of iraq really needs to do is connect these inkblots, you will, of their legitimate security forces so there isn't this constant back and forth. and that was the topic of our conversation with prime minister abbadi yesterday. it is his intent to focus now on al anbar province. >> is that why they need additional u.s. help? >> it's part of the reason. the -- we didn't talk about

specifying any particular kind of support to the al anbar offensive but rather the concept of an al anbar offensive, while maintaining pressure north of baghdad as well. in next question. >> welcome mr. secretary, i should say welcome back. just a brief followup on yemen and then about ukraine. in light of the fact that aqap is consistently described as the most severe threat or one of the two most severe threats en route to the u.s. homeland work u.s. military access, the withdrawal of diplomats a great number of u.s. intelligence resources could you articulate for the american people how much greater is the aqap threat to americans today due to aqap's advance, gaining there and the loss of american assets on the ground to target them and track them? >> as i said, our efforts have to change their character but

remain steady in their intensity. mr. carter: this is a group that does show determination to not only fight on the ground in yemen, which is what you referred to but also strike at the united states. it's easier for us to operate against a group like that if we have the cooperation of a stable government as was the case in the past. but if we don't have a stable government, as is the case in the current circumstance, we have to use other means to protect ourselves and that's what we're doing. >> how do those other means compensate for instance, without special forces on this ground, listening posts in the capital city is this -- it's hard to imagine, for people at home to imagine that there's the same control and response. mr. carter: it's easier if there's a government with which

we can cooperate in existence in that country. we're not going to find that all the time in all places in world. that's why we have counterterrorism capabilities that don't depend upon that and we resort to them and need them and use them in a circumstance like this where we need to protect ourselves anyway. >> and about the ewe crine, it's more than a year since russia took the crime yasm you have action in ukraine and action flaring up despite the cease fire. i took note today that russian president vladimir putin again claimed there are no russian troops on the ground in eastern ukraine when the intelligence is to the contrary. i just wonder how you can move the ball forward when the adversary in this case won't even grant the facts on the ground and i wonder, as you come into this job, what evidence you have seen that the administration policy of gradually raising the economic costs on russia is having any effect whatsoever on the ground in the ukraine?

mr. carter: as you suggest, a principle point of pressure that the united states has been applying to russia for some time now in account of the fact that russia is, and we know is, participating in fomenting trouble in eastern ukraine is the economic pressure and of course that's not just ours, jim, and in particular, i guess it's important to note it's not especially hours. it's especially european sanctions because they have the most economic leverage over russia. i'm not an economist but i understand that those sanctions are having an effect on russia, along with plummeting oil prices. those are the two factors bringing pressure to bear upon the russian economy. and so the first line of

pressure for us is economic and political and we're doing that. with respect to the question of russia's role in there, i think we have abundant evidence of that the international community has abundant evidence of that, the europeans have evidence that convinces them to take the strong economic steps that they have. and my understanding is, my observation is, that this is having a real effect on the russian economy. at some point the russian people are going to ask themselves whether these kinds of adventures are worth the price. >> mr. secretary, i noted that your ceremonial swearing in ceremony a while back that former secretary perry noted your joint efforts in attempting to denuclearize, as he termed it north korea and those

efforts failed my question to you is what lessons from that experience do you think would apply to the current situation with iran, and mr. chairman, if i may call on this tradition of asking each of you a question, and of course chime in if you want i'm also curious with iran now in line to get these advanced air defense systems from russia, does that effectively take the military option off the table at some point in the future? or at the very least make it enormously more complicated? mr. carter: with respect to the nuclear weapon situation in iran, a couple of things. first, those negotiations that are being conducted by us and our p-5 plus one partners with the iranians have the objective of arresting the iranian nuclear program and they're obviously --

that process isn't complete yet. the president has indicated he's looking for a good deal and there is no deal yet sewn up so it's going to take some time for secretary perry and the others who are negotiating that to see what kind of agreement they're able to reach with the iranians but we've made it clear what is necessary to satisfy us that the agreement is a good agreement from our point of view. for me here our role is not to conduct those negotiations but two other things. the first is to make sure that we have as the president says, other options on the table. and that's something we take very seriously here and we do have other options on the table.

and the second thing is to continue to play a stabilizing role in the region as a whole with all of our friends and allies of which we have many there and continue to strengthen their capabilities and their confidence. so those are our two jobs here in the department of defense and very attentive to them as is chairman dempsey and everybody else. >> to answer your question about the introduction of the s-300 orix, the s-20 charlie air defense system. general dempsey: we've known about that for several years and have accounted for it in all our planning. >> would it present a military obstacle if this was a knead in the future? general dempsey: we encourage the diplomatic solution and if

the diplomacy fails to ensure iran doesn't achieve a nuclear weapon is intact. >> for both of you, first, general dempsey, i wanted to ask you about yemen and saudi arabia. there's wide agreement that the hue tees tissue that the huttis are backed by iran and some say they're not only supported by iran but controlled by iran, sort of like hezbollah in lebanon. do you agree that they are proxy or a tool of iranian power? and also so far the hutis and al qaeda seem to be gaining territory in the saudi air strikes. do the saudis have anyone on the ground in their -- on their side ? and for secretary carter, what role do you expect the shia militias to play in iraq? in the u.s.-supported iraqi

offensive? general dempsey: if you look back at the history of the relationship between iran and hutis, they haven't exerted the same control as lebanon over hezbollah but they are a source of resources for the hutis. the huti leader himself is -- considered himself to be one of the heirs of the prophet and the sect of shia islam from which the hutis draw their inspiration has an aspiration to restore that empire which existed centuries ago that included all of yemen and parts of southern saudi arabia. so i don't see them as having the same kind of relationship as lebanese hezbollah has with iran but they clearly have a relationship with them. to that extent, the saudis are right to be concerned.

>> and the second question? mr. carter: i forget what -- yen dempsey: i forget what it was. >> do they have any on the ground? general dempsey: i will tell you, our central command commander was in riyadh today far day long consultation with saudi leadership on their campaign. mr. carter: with respect to shiite militias in iraq which was your question to me this is a subject we discussed with the prime minister and defense minister of iraq who are here this week. and the -- to go back to the important point there with which they agreed, it's important that the -- that all forces acting

against isis in iraq be under the control of the central iraqi government. that is the principle that we certainly adhere to and that's the principle that the prime minister has. therefore, to get to your point about shiite militias, there are shiite militias that have that characteristic and there are those that don't and the prime minister made clear that latter, that is ones that were not under his command and control, were not welcomed there, would not participate in their operations and would not be supportive and they certainly won't be supported by us. we support forces that are under command and control of the iraqi government, irrespective of their sectarian makeup which is the whole point . the way things got the way they did in iraq