next returning for legislative work taking up a couple of bulls that would make changes to the 2010 health care law. also coming up today, two hours of debate on a resolution directing the president to remove u.s. troops in iraq and syria. live house coverage here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we strive to be one nation indivisible, constant in vigilance and seeking liberty and justice for all. because we are too weak to find total accomplishment in these things, we place our trust in you. help us to be a virtueous people, responsible for upholding the sound principles that brought our country into being. may law and order not only be

words echoing in the halls of government and the courts of this land but words describing how all americans live out their citizenship and ownership of the commonwealth of our great nation. bless the members of this people's house who have been entrusted by their constituents to usher an ever-greater future into existence in our land. may they model for all americans class openness and honesty in the work they do. may everything done here this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from california ms. hahn. ms. hahn: i'd like to invite all of our visitors in the

gallery to join us as we pledge allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to express my support for bipartisan legislation before the house to protect medical innovation act of 2015 to permanently repeal the onerous medical device tax. the medical device tax has condemned our manufacturers of medical devices of the united states to less competition and being less competitive throughout the world. these manufacturers are now competing with one armed tied

behind their back because of this onerous tax. this has serious consequences across this great land for companies, job losses, jobs moving overseas, less innovation and less products coming to market. this morning was another great example of that because i got word that the largest medical manufacture in my district was just bought out -- manufacturer in my district was just bought out. those jobs are in jeopardy and hundreds and hundreds of well-paying jobs. they did this strictly because they couldn't compete at their size because of all the things that were against them, including the medical device tax. mr. katko: there's no question they had a role in this. and no question that it hut hundreds of jobs in central new york in jeopardy. i ask my colleagues to repeal this onerous tax. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. hahn: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. hahn: mr. speaker, i rise

to honor sons and daughters in touch an organization which supports and connects those parents who died in battle. it was founded by my friend, tony, who lost his father in vietnam when he was just 2 years old. this past monday i laid a wreath at the tome of the unknown soldier in -- tomb of the unknown soldier and visited tony's father, william. they help them through the process of healing and honors their moms and dads. sons and daughters in touch will celebrate its 25th anniversary this father's day with the remembrance at the vietnam veterans memorial. we have a shared responsibility to care for the children whose parents have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. i've introduced a resolution in honor of sons and daughters in touch recognizing the

importance of this organization and the strength of the families it represents. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, with the supreme court about to rule on the legal definition of marriage, i rise in support of states like pennsylvania that have defined marriage between a man and a woman. the commonwealth of pennsylvania was re-founded on religious tolerance by william penn. in europe whoever was most popular and powerful in a given place in time tried to force minorities to violate their beliefs and that was why so many different groups of people came to america and particularly to pennsylvania, religious minorities such as quakers, the amish, the menonites. philadelphia has the most synagogues. pittsburgh and harrisburg have significant jewish populations.

pennsylvania continues the tradition of respecting each other even when they disagree. we hear a lot of talk about diversity these days but many of those same people who tell us they want diversity are also trying to force their views on others by law. states that through the democratic process have defined marriage should not be overwritten by five federal unelected judges. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, globally the national institutes of health work to protect against bioterrorist attacks and disease outbreaks. domestically, their groundbreaking research provides treatments and cures for devastating diseases such as alzheimer's and cancer and the more that 400,000 jobs provided through the national institutes of health bolster our economy. however, whenever we count for inflation, funding for the national institutes of health peaked in 2003.

this budgetary reality has forced the n.i.h. to administrator fewer competitive research grants, missed fewer patients to their clinical trials and fall behind in scientific discoveries. mr. speaker, america cannot afford to underfund the national institutes of health. this is why i started the house n.i.h. caucus with representatives rosa delauro and peter king. i urge my colleagues to join us as we worge together to develop a plan to increase the purchasing power of the national institutes of health. the time to act is now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the distinguished gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> men doesn't usually like to talk about their health but the well-being of every man in the united states is an important topic. mr. speaker this week is national men's health week, a time where we have the opportunity to have a serious conversation about our health. despite advances in medical

technology and research, men to continue to live an average of five years less than women. even more, men are less likely than women to seek preventative care. as the co-chair of the bipartisan congressional men's health caucus, lim i'm also committed to teaching our youth the importance of eating right and getting exercise. as we celebrate this week mr. speaker i encourage all husband brothers, sons, uncles and we may even have a talk to ourselves to make sure we're taking the steps to stay healthy. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? veast mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to -- mr. veasey: mr. speaker i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. veasey: mr. speaker i rise today to speak about one of the greatest security threats that our nation and world face today -- the threat of a nuclear iran. i greatly respect all the hard work that the white house the state department the department of energy have put forth in developing the

framework for our joint comprehensive plan of action on iran's nuclear program and i strongly urge them to continue these negotiations over the coming weeks. it is vitally important that the u.s. employ every means of diplomatic persuasion at their disposal in order to reach a peaceful resolution that prevents iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i'd also like to encourage all the negotiating partners to ensure that a final agreement includes the following and that will be unfettered inspections and a verification system, disclosure of iran's past military actions and pursuing a nuclear weapon sanctions relief that progresses only as iran meets their obligations under the agreement and a long-term nuclear weapons prevention and also dismantlement of current nuclear infrastructure. this agreement represents a turning point towards peace and the security of israel and the u.s. and the world. let's make sure we seize this historic opportunity. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? mr. guinta: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. guinta: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize an individual from manchester new hampshire, who has been named franco american of the year. gerald cardinal lecroix was born in canada and moved to manchester. he received degrees in theology from lavale university in quebec. in 1975 he entered religious life by joining the pias of the 10th secular institute. ordained as a priest in 1988 father lecroix served as a missionary in colombia. he then returned to north america and was director general of the institute. consess crated as a bishop in 2009, he was part of the archbishop in quebec. he served as archbishop of

quebec and primate of canada receiving his paliam from pope benedict xvi. pope francis appointed him a cardinal priest in rome. this is a tremendous accomplishment, and on behalf of the granite state we are all proud of cardinal lecroix. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. well, in two weeks at a time when every american has anxiety about the economy and is wondering how they're going to make ends meet in two weeks the export-import bank, absent action by this congress, will be allowed to expire and cost this country and our economy hundreds of thousands of jobs. mr. kildee: just for the record, let me read a comment by the president.

quoting exports create and sustain jobs for millions of american workers and contribute to the growth and strength of the united states' economy. the export-import bank contributes in a significant way to our nation's exports sales. that's a comment from the president. president ronald reagan. this is not an ideological debate between thoughtful participants in the legislative process. there are extreme voices for ideological purposes on the far right that oppose the export-import bank and its work, but a majority of this congress and the majority of the american people would like to see it re-authorized. we were sent here to do the people's work. and i think it's long past time for the majority of congress to have its voice heard and the majority of the american people have their interests represented. we should re-authorize the export-import bank and save hundreds of thousands of american jobs. thank you, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this week the house will consider a legislation that will repeal the independent payment advisory board also known as ipab. they find ways of curb spending in medicare. while medicare continues to eat much more of the budget relying on a group of unelected bureaucrats is an absolute long way to do any reforms we make to health care should focus on, strengthen the relationship between the doctor and their patient so they can work together to make health care decisions. what we don't need is a bureaucrat from washington creating a wall between the patient and their physician. mr. gibbs: two, to drive down costs we have to focus on market-oriented reforms like making coverage affordable across state lines and removing the individual and employer mandates. three, we have to incentivize the health savings accounts to

pay for routine and individual care. ipab reform is the first step to returning the health care decisions to patients and their doctors. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gallego: the strength of our communities depends on the health and well-being of our families. unfortunately millions of families across our nation, are impacted by alzheimer's and dementia. june is alzheimer's and brain awareness month. it's my hope we can come together, republicans and democrats, and commit to give researchers the resources they need to combat alzheimer's and other diseases. but also to make sure patients and families have the care and support they need. policies like paid leave caregiver support, work force

training and long-term care options must be expanded if we truly want to make a difference to fight against alzheimer's. these policies are especially important for women and communities of color. hispanics are 1.5 times as likely to have alzheimer's as their white counterparts and african-americans are twice as likely. studies have also demonstrated that socioeconomic disparities play in the role of alzheimer's. this is completely unacceptable. mr. speaker, the health and the health of your families should not depend on your income or zip code. i look forward to working with my cligse to ensure all -- colleagues to ensure that all those affected to alzheimer's and dementia have access to the support and care they deserve. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized 1. mrs. blackburn: i rise in support of the protect innovation medical act of 2015. what this will do is to repeat

the device 1. now, the device tax, the medical device tax, was a misplace and disastrous tax that was put in as an obamacare mandate, and what it will do is taxing the medical device industry and those that utilize those components. . in my state of tennessee, there are 10,000 individuals that work in this industry and the manhattan institute estimates that unless we repeal this tax and get it off the books now we will lose 1000 of those jobs. that's a 10% reduction. in a component, a part of the economy that promotes good-paying jobs, 40% higher than other manufacturing jobs. i ask my colleagues to join me.

let's repeal the let's repeal the medical device tax. i yield back. 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 revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to speak on the importance of continuing deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca. this week marks the third anniversary of this action, daca and these individuals that are part of this initiative that has brought hundreds of thousands of aspiring young americans who were prouth to the u.s. as children through no fault of their own out of the shadows. these individuals want to work hard for a chance for the american dream without fear of being torn away from their families. they want to be productive and contributing members to society. this program has allowed a segment of our population who are already part of the american fab lick to keep using their talents to move our country forward. they are an integral part of our

society already. the bottom line is we need a long-term fix to -- for our broken immigration system. we need comprehensive immigration reform. an act of congress which is the only way we can currently fix this failing system. now is the time for bipartisan permanent comprehensive immigration reform. it's time we take action. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and rhett re-my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i rise today to express my support for medicare advantage. 15 million americans choose medicare advantage. medicare advantage has been successful for its enrollees. i stand with those seniors, including many in my district who support this program. mr. bilirakis: medicare advantage ought to be touted.

its focus on prevent i medicine means focus on seniors and less health care spending. today and tomorrow the house will cor a number -- consider in -- consider a number of bills to strengthen medicare and in particular medicare advantage. i have 100,000 seniors in my district and i know this is important to them. traditional medicare and medicare advantage are vital programs and i'm hopeful we'll receive a strong bipartisan vote on all these bills. it's time to come together and support successful programs that harness the pow over the free market. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: i rise today to mark the three-year anniversary of deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca. roughly 800000 dreamers across the country are able to work and go to school because of daca -- daca. all these aspiring americans

want is to be able to contribute meaningfully to our oat and -- to our society and daca has given them the opportunity to do that. i want to mark this occasion by stharing story of two dreamers in my district whose lives daca has transformed. yahana was exneapings student. during high school she wasn't able to participate in leadership conferences because of difficulty traveling in united states. after college, he lack of status initially prevented her sit far medical school example. luckily daca provided relief and she's currently in medical school. marco is another individual in my district he, came to the u.s. when he was 2 years old. daca provided a lifeline for him, enabling him to attend college and earn a degree in finance. he served in student government. daca has been a catalyst for so many aspiring americans. only congress can fix our broken

immigration system. i call on us to do system of i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and rhett re-my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to recognize june as national great outdoors month. as an eagle scout and scout master, i know firsthand why we must all work firsthand to strengthen conservation programs and other policies to protect our environment. as a scout master i teach boy scouts the principle of leaving areas better than we found them. that's why this week i'll be introducing the great lakes water protection act, to prevent sewage dumping in the great lakes. mr. dold: the great lakes watt brother text act is a bipartisan way to protect our pledge to protect this nation's resources. the great lakes provides

drinking water to 30 million people. i care deeply about protecting our environment and ensuring the well being of our great lakes and its ecosystem. for serve -- preserving our environment should not be a part season issue. in fact it's not a part season issue. i call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in this important initiative that's already endorsed by the sierra club, the national wildlife federation and more so we can preserve our outdoors for generations to come. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: it is with great personal sadness that i rise today to pay final tribute to san francisco's much-beloved leroy king who died on june 12 at the age of 91. a distinguished labor and frame

rights leader he improved the lives of working men and women in san francisco and throughout the country. from inviting dr. martin luther king jr. in 19 -- to speak in san francisco at 1967 to casting my -- casting the vote for barack obama for the first african-american president, he witnessed history he served in the army and dedicated his entire life to preserving and strengthening the great democracy he fought to protect. even in his 80's in the tradition of great american leaders, he was arrested for an act of civil disobedience on behalf of hotel and restaurant workers. he served the northern regional -- served as northern regional district of ilwu for more than 30 years. it was important to him to overturn a discrimination system that elected only whites to

union office and helped create a fully inclusive i want grated work force. king organized with legendary labor leader harry bridges, was a staunch supporter of civil rights champion cesar chavez was a supporter of dr. martin luther king and in 2009 was honored with the dr. martin luther king award for promoting social jusity by embodying dr. king's nonviolent participation. he was for ending discrimination promoting affordable housing, community development, to jazz, he has been honored, his accomplishments are memorialized on locations throughout san francisco. my revised remarks for the record will go more into it. it's been a great privilege for me to know such a deeply principled and exem lair human

being and to call him friend. i will miss him. my family, my husband, my daughter christine, our entire family will miss him terribly. i hope it's a comfort to his daughters rebecca and carolyn, his son, leroy and his grandchildren and great grandchildren that so many san franciscoians indeed, beyond san francisco people, loved and admired him and they shared their tremendous -- share they tremendous loss. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. waters: the threat of boe coe ha rom and isis is real.

remember, they are now one. ms. brown: last -- mrs. wilson: last week a student pled guilty. think said the virginia chase was a chill regular minder that islamic state's pervasive online presence and ability to woo american youth. how long before we hear headlines about american teenagers pledging allegiance to boko haram? remember, they are not one. how long before we hear about attacks on americans made in the name of boko haram. we must do all we can to defeat boko haram and break its unholy alliance with isis. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor house resolution 147 as my tend -- as amended to defeat boko haram and remember to tweet, tweet tweet

#bringbackourgirls and #join repwilson. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. adams: since 2009, the export-import bank has created or sustained 1.3 million private sector jobs, many in small businesses. in my district alone from twovepb 2016 28 countries, 00 jobs and more than $123 million in exports were supported by the export-import bank. in addition to creating jobs, the export-import bank is self-sustaining. at the end of this month the bank's harter will expire, hampering growth of small business exports. foreign companies are supporting their own like never before, mr. speaker. in stores across america that is evident. it's time for our foreign competitors to see more made in

america. our american companies deserve a fair chance at success. we must re-authorize the export-import bank now. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today we celebrate the third anniversary of the deferred action for childhood arrivals, otherwise known as the daca program. today is also another day of mourning congress' failure to pass immigration reform. daca is working. 640,000 dreamers are already part of our american fabric and are contributing to our economy every day thank tosca. in fact, thanks to -- in fact, this summer two daca beneficiaries are serbing in my office.

monica will graduate with a degree in political science this year. daca allowed her to get they are driver's license so she could work to pay for her education. stephanie was born in mexico city and moved to the area when she was 10 and is pursuing a degree in political science at the university of california-los angeles ucla, and is researching the economic impact of daca. mr. cardenas: thanks to daca, dreamers like monica and stephanie help drive our nation's economy forward. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. plaskett: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to congratulate not only the students, but the community of the virgin islands on so many graduates of our high school these last weeks. while i have not been able to be there in body for some of the graduations, i'm there in spirit

and in heart. the gift hill school azy academy, st. croix central high school, st. croix educational complex, st. joseph's high school antilles school, church of god academy, st. peter and st. paul cathedral school, seventh day adventist high school and the virgin islands montessori school and peter gruber international academy and wesleyian academy. students, you know you are our future and we love you. we expect great things for you. you are entering a world at war, a nation with challenges and conflicts, and our island in crisis but we need with your passion for learning, discipline, and an ability to take risks, we are in great hands. thank you so much for the opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings during the former member's program be printed in the congressional record and that all members and former members who spoke during the proceedings have the privilege of revising and extending their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 319 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 42. house resolution 319, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 160, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part a of the report of the

committee on rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means, and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 1190, to repeal the provisions of the patient protection and affordable care act providing for the independent payment advisory board. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be

considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce, and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to

revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, house resolution 319 provides for a rule to consider two separate bills which will address two of the most flawed and ill-conceived provisions contained within the so-called affordable care act. the rule provides for one hour of debate on h.r. 160, dealing with the repeal of the medical device tax equally divided between the majority and minority on the committee on ways and means. as well as the standard motion to recommit provided for the minority. the rule further provides for one hour of debate on h.r. 1190, which would repeal the independent payment advisory board. this is equally divided between the majority and minority of both the committee of ways and means and the committee on energy and commerce. further, the rule provides that pitts amendment, which will cover the cost of repealing the independent payment advisory board, by using the affordable

care act prevention's fund, a slush fund for the secretary which has been used to pay for everything from urban garden ening for lobbying for higher cigarette tax, and that be added to the bill. the standard motion to recommit is also provided to the minority on h.r. 1190. it is well-documented that many provisions contained within the affordable care act will have negative consequences on patients both in access to care and ined a fordability. yet, -- inaffordability. yet, on a large bipartisan nature, the repeal was called for almost immediately after the passage of the affordable care act in 2010. one such provision was the tax contained within the bill on medical device manufacturers. it seems illlogical that within a -- illogical that within a

bill that was purported to make medical care accessible to all americans that it would tax the very providers of medical innovation, creates the devices to improve the delivery of health care. but nevertheless the president and then-majority leader harry reid in the senate included this provision in order to pay for part of the astronomical price tag that accompanied this massive bill. this tax is an unfair burden that actually increases the cost that consumers will pay at the doctor's office. the tax has also been cited by dozens of medical device manufacturers who have or are considering moving their operations overseas so that they can continue to innovate without the heavy burden of the internal revenue service stifling their growth. this tax slows the creation of new techniques slows the creation of new devices, all of which could make the delivery of medicine more efficient.

it also puts at risk the jobs associated with the creation of those devices. unless anyone thinks we are merely talking about the largest and most expenses pieces of technology found within a hospital, such as m.r.i. or the cat scanner and surgical equipment let's be clear that this tax covers every piece of medical equipment from those large machines to the smallest of items, including the syringes that are used to deliver life-saving antibiotics and vaccines. in my district i have met with a number of constituents, including the owner of retractable technologies, which makes those very syringes and has been shown firsthand how this tax is creating a burden on the growth of his company. the medical device tax has led to the elimination of thousands of good-paying jobs and repealing it would be the first step in bringing those jobs back to stem the loss of future jobs within an industry that is

vital to the country in helping to mitigate the rising cost of health care due to other burdensome provisions within the affordable care act. mr. speaker, plain and simple, this is a tax on business, a tax on small business, a tax on consumers a tax on innovation. to date 33,000 jobs have been lost in the medical device industry since the passage of the affordable care act, and it's projected that well over 100,000 additional jobs are on the chopping block. and actually who could be surprised about this? excise taxes, which this tax is, are meant to lead to a reduction in the consumption of the good being taxed. we place an excise tax on cigarettes to discourage their use, making it burdensome to afford a smoking habit. did the president and harry reid intend to make it more burdensome to use more efficient medical devices?

of course, not only is this burdensome tax ill-conceived in a concept it was ill-conceived in a practical sense as well. last year an inspector general audit found that the internal revenue service issued 217 erroneous penalties to device companies in a six-month period. we have all seen how poorly much of the affordable care act was written. one need only look at the most recent supreme court cases for that determination, but how difficult is it to write a clear-cut tax provision? apparently for harry reid it is quite difficult. h.r. 160 has a bipartisan -- has bipartisan and bicameral support and currently has 282 co-sponsors. in fact, 18 democrats in this body sent a letter to speaker john boehner and minority leader nancy pelosi calling for the timely passage of this bill. republican leadership in the house heard their requests and the calls from many other

members of this body in moving this bill in a responsible way to put americans back to work and lower the cost of health care for all. the second bill contained in today's rule, h.r. 1190, repeals one of the most poorly thought out ideas ever to come out of congress and that's really quite impressive considering the many ideas that have originated in the pelosi-led house of representatives. the independent payment advisory board is an unelected unaccountable board dedicated to set up within the affordable care act for the sole purpose to cut medicare payments to providers if it medicare targets within the bill are not met. let's be very clear about this. president obama, majority leader harry reid, speaker nancy pelosi created a board of unelected officials in order to ration medicare to cut medicare and every democrat who

supported the affordable care act voted in favor of this board. the independent payment advisory board is a regulatory board composed of 15 health professionals appointed by the president. there is no requirement that any of these professionals have ever actually practiced medicine a day in their lives, and we are well aware that this president prefers academics to those that have real-world experience. the board's stated responsibility is to develop proposals to reduce the growth of medicare spending. what does that mean? it means seniors will face cuts to health care with no recourse if they don't agree with what the board proposes. former office management director peter orszagh called the independent payment advisory board the single biggest yielding of power to an independent entity since the creation of the federal

reserve. think about that. let that sink in. the independent payment advise board has been given the -- advisory board has been given the authority to do for medicare policy what the fed is able to do with monetary policy. that should be terrifying to every american. the independent payment advisory board is set to recommend cuts of -- amounting to 1/2 to medicare spending and the number rises until it hits 1 1/2%. it reduces the rates that medicare pays for medical procedures and drugs which means the independent payment advisory board can only make cuts to providers' reimbursements. instead of being allowed to make real lasting structural reforms that could actually help the solvency of medicare, this board's approach to saving money is one of the clumsiest, more bureaucratic ways of achieving this goal. the independent payment

advisory board has massive structural and constitutional defects in its design. if congress fails to act on the board's recommendations, they automatically go into effect. and even if the congress did pass a bill countering the board's cuts to medicare, the president can simply veto the bill. and the judiciary and how this passes constitutional muster i seriously question, specifically the judiciary is specifically not allowed to review their recommendations of for these and many other reasons, over 500 organizations have urged congress to get rid of this thing repeal the independent payment advisory board including the american medical association, the american college of surgeons and the veterans health council. repealing the independent payment advisory board would protect seniors' access to medicare, encourage us to do real medicare reforms and put an end to the constitutionally questionable board of unelected

bureaucrats right now under the president's health care law the very decisions they're empowered to make to medicare. all americans will benefit from the repeal of this draconian idea. it is a clumsy way that we're -- then majority democrats were able to buck their responsibility at addressing cost concerns over entitlements. government by bureaucrats instead of government by the people. government by bureaucrats instead of government by the citizens. that is no way to run the country and that is how harry reid and nancy pelosi preferred to operate it. the independent payment advisory board undermines seniors' access to health care and the health care they need and have paid for throughout their working lives. this repeal should have been repealed -- this bill should have been repealed years ago. the independent payment

advisory board continued to live. last year's election created a seat change over in the other body. changed the majority leader in the senate and now the american people may finally see their government begin to work for them yet once again. i'll reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i rise in opposition to this rule which once again denies members of this body the opportunity debate amendments to improve this legislation and i rise in opposition to this body's misguided priorities. how many references were there to people who were speakers of this house, that were senate majority leaders to health care reform which is already tissue which has already withstood several elections and is the lew of the land.

what we have before us today are two more bills that repeal part of the affordable care act. we've now considered over 60 bills to repeal the fund -- repeal, defund or dismantle the affordable care act rather than improve and build upon it. and with the work that remains to be done we could be debating legislation to renew our highway trust fund and repair our crumbling roads and bridges. we'll be offering that soon on the previous question. we could consider a bill to repeal our broken immigration system or help the millions of americans who are living below the poverty line even though they work two jobs and it's increasingly hard to support their families or we could take on the critical matter of climate change and confront the fact that it's contributed to one of the worst droughts in the our nation's history. but oh, no, it's more important to have the 61st and 62nd repeal of parts of the affordable care act rather than move forward

with a future-oriented agenda for the american people. now let's get into some of the specifics of the underlying legislation. the most recent estimate by the congressional budget office found that a total of 27 million people will gain access to health care coverage through the affordable care act over the next 10 years who otherwise would not have had coverage. that's to say nothing of the additional millions of americans who benefit from the affordable care act by having coverage for pre-existing conditions for the first time in their lives are no longer subject to lifetime caps that could leave them bankrupt if they have a serious illness or people that are able to stay as young adults up to age 26 on their parents' plan. constituents from all areas in my district have shared stories of their success using our state's health exchange, connect for colorado, and described how the affordable care act's coverage provided by the a.c.a. has improved their lives. i've heard from constituents like morgan in colorado who used the exchange to enroll in the exact same plan she had before

the affordable care act but her premium december creased an the services covered expanded. more value for her money. or donna who recently moved to boulder colorado. she's an outdoor enthusiast but was afraid to make her way to the mountains before securing health care coverage. through connect for colorado she has access under the affordable care act. she's now enrolled in a comprehensive medical and dental plan to ensure she won't become bankrupt if she sustains an injury. these are far from isolated cases. in my home state of colorado 15% of people lacked health insurance before a.c.a. according to a recent study of the kaiser family foundation that figure dropped to 9% by last year. and the success is not limited to my state. according to a gallup poll released in april the percentage of americans lacking health care nationwide has dropped by more than a third since the marketplace opened at the end of 013, from 18% to under 12%.

the affordable care act is working and instead of continuing in that veen, once again the republican -- vein, once again the republican corning is seek to repeal parts of that law rather than move forward and improve it. the first of today's two bills, the so-called protecting seniors' access to medicare act doesn't protect anyone's access to anything. the advisory board which it's designed to repeal which has been vilified in the past is far more money dayne and important to the process of medicare. they're a board of advisors that make non-binding recommendations to congress about how to improve costs for medicare without sacrificing quality of care. something we should all be interested in. we can debate all day about the

makeup of the board or instead we can discuss repealing the board in its entirety. which is what we're talking about here today. this advisory board will reprovide critical advice to help congress reduce the cost of providing health care. now, interestingly enough this amendment pays for the $7 billion cost of eliminating this board by slashing nearly $9 billion in funding from the prevention and public health fund. this fund is used for vital preventive health programs like childhood vaccines helping people quit smoking stroke prevention and maternal wellness. the cornerstone of health savings is preventive wellness. i co-sponsored a bill with my friend mr. burgess who is managing the bill on the other side that would allow the department to account for long-term savings. if his own bill were to become law and i hope it does, it would show that the so-called way that

we're paying for this repeal is illusory. eliminating preventative health care program can cost money in the long run and under the congressional scoring model we both support it would likely not even register as a cost saving or if it did it would be much less than the $9 billion. the second bill being considered the medical pro-- the protect medical innovation act aims to do something many of us on both sides support repealing the excise tax on medical devices. the medical device tax is one of the measures originally included by the senate to fund the badly needed consumer protections and benefits that form the core of the bill. it's use to support tax cuts. this body has put before us many -- tax cut after tax cut after tax cut that are unfunded. the whole discussion about how you can afford to cut taxes is how you pay for them. what government waste do you

cut? what other taxes do you use to offset the cost of tax cuts? yosk we don't -- of course we don't want to slow the pace of progress with unnecessary costs and burdens and we want to make sure that device manufacturers have every incentive to increase research and development and not pass costs along to consumers but unfortunately, even though i along with alma adams of north carolina and matt cartwright of pennsylvania offered an amendment that would have paid for the medical device tax using a commonsense approach that wouldn't suppress economic growth, our amendment was not allowed to even be discussed here on the floor of the house. not only would our amendment pay for the medical device repeal have avodded adding nearly $30 billion to our deficit, as this bill would do before us today, but it would have helped bring balance to our nation's energy sector by stopping the government from choosing winners and losers in energy and lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. unfortunately, under this rule, we don't get a vote or debate on the floor. so we're left with two bad choices. we can of course leave in place

a tax that many of us want to remove, or we can add $25 billion to our deficit. neither of those are the right answers for the american people or for medical device companies or the consumers who use medical device products. the american people deserve better and if we defeat this rule in open process, we'll allow republicans and democrats to offer real, constructive, better ideas about how to improve on these two pieces of legislation. i reseve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: at this time i recognize the gentleman from indiana, dr. bucshon, a member of our committee on energy and commerce, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bucshon: mr. speaker, in indiana, the medical device industry employs over 20,000 hoosiers and over 300 medical device companies. these are good-paying jobs that pay 56% more than the average wage.

as indiana governor mike pence recently put in a letter to our delegation, this industry is vital to indiana's economy and the health and well being of people across the nation and the world. unfortunately this critical industry is living under the shadow of a job-killing tax put in place to pay for the affordable care act. in fact, companies in indiana have already halted research projects and plans for expansion. the medical device tax is crippling innovation of life-saving products like the ones i used as a surgeon and it's putting patients and jobs at risks. -- at risk. this is about patients at the end of the day, and their access to health care. we've had broad bipartisan support for repeal of the medical device tax in both chambers before. it's time to put an end to this onerous tax once and for all. i also support an ipab repeal.

as a physician, i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule to allow for the authorization of the export-import bank for zen years. to discuss that proposal, i yield to the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. waters: thank you. i'd like to thank the gentleman from colorado as well as leader pelosi and whip hoyer for their unyielding support for thousands of american jobs and businesses. i rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order to force a vote on legislation sponsored by myself mr. heck, ms. moore, and mr.

hoyer and 186 other democrats that will renew and reform the export-import bank's charter for the long term. mr. speaker, congress has just five days to act before the export-import bank shuts down. we're in the 11th hour and despite a recent bipartisan vote in the senate, and broad support across the aisle in this house, we're still fighting to keep this engine of job creation and economic growth alive. it's interesting to note that contrary to most of the disagreements that take place in this chamber, in the debate over the export-import bank, the facts remain undisputed. over the past five years, it is estimated that the bank has created or sustained more than 1.3 million private sector jobs. 164,000 in the past year alone. in 2014, the bank returned more than 67 -- returned more than

$674 million back to the american taxpayers. an amount totaling $6.9 billion over the past two decades. democrats republicans business and labor all understand the important role that the export-import bank plays in our economy. and presidents ranging from ronald reagan and george w. bush to bill clinton have been outspoken in their support for the bank's ability to create and sustain american jobs and keep our businesses competitive. ex-im levels the playing field with countries like china russia, and countless others all of which have their own version of the bank supporting american competitors. mr. speaker, democrats are coming to the floor today to implore our numerous republican colleagues who support the export-import bank, starting with speaker boehner, to stand up for jobs, businesses, and american competitiveness by standing up to the extremists who want to close the bank.

let's send a strong message to america's manufacturers businesses, and workers that we are committed to preserving an institution that for decades has helped this nation create jobs and grow the economy. so i would urge a no vote on the previous question and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: at this time i would like to yield one minute to mr. bilirakis of florida, a valued member of the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bilirakis: thank you. i rise in support of the rule for h.r. 160 the protect medical innovation act. last august i held two 21st century cure round tables in my district. the second round table featured health care providers. one participant was slee novorska c.f.o. of rochester

elect ro medical. they're a medical device manufacturer in my district and it is a small business. the medical device tax originally included in the president's health care law is devastating to these small businesses. 80% of the device manufacturers in florida have less than 25 employees. in total, florida has 662 device manufacturers and one third of them are in the tampa bay area, in the area i represent in congress. this bill has over 280 bipartisan co-sponsors. voting for this rule and bill should be easy, despite the administration's veto threat. let's support device manufacturers and give them the flexibility to innovate and help our constituents. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington a leader in the effort to re-authorize the import-export bank, mr. heck.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to oppose the previous question so we might indeed get to house resolution 1031 the promoting u.s. jobs through export act of 2015. 1031 which as has been indicated re-authorizes the export-import bank is a deficit cutting, job creating machine. why is it important that we get to it? because indeed, the charter of the bank expires in five legislative days. . last week i was at home and was channel surfing and i encountered one of the top 10 movies in all of cinema "blazing saddles" and there's a great scene where little goes into town. he's not favored by the towns folk. he puts the revolver and puts

it to his head and he said, stop stop or i'll shoot myself. he put it to his ear and confusing everybody in his presence. that's how i feel about this. those that want toned the export-import bank wants to reduce the federal evidence. the export-import bank has cut the federal deficit by over $20 billion. those that want to terminate the bank say they're in favor of faster economic growth but the export-import bank supported 64,000 jobs last year alone in virtually every congressional district in this great land. make no mistake. if the bank expires we will lose jobs and we will lose jobs immediately here and there and everywhere. stop and think about that. what is more important than a job? it is the means by which we provide for ourselves. we are self-sufficient.

is anyone suggesting we have too many jobs? is anybody suggesting that work isn't worthwhile? i'll never forget when former vice president mondale once said -- i'll never forget when former vice president mondale once said, you want to know how important work is in society? stop. think about the first thing you ask somebody what do you do? work is important. jobs are important. the export-import bank creates jobs. vote no on the previous question. re-authorize the export-import bank. five legislative days to go. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: mr. speaker at this time i'd like to recognize the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx, the vice chairman of the committee on rules, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker.

and i thank my colleague on the rules committee who handles our rules and legislation so effectively on the floor. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bills. when the democrat-controlled congress rammed the so-called affordable care act through this chamber, i joined my republican colleagues in expressing our grave concerns over the effects of the law's tax increases. specifically, we warned that excise tax on medical devices would hinder innovation as well as restrict growth and job creation. in an industry that has improved the quality of life for millions around the world. and just as we cautioned this tax on devices that restore mobility, keep hearts in rhythm and help doctors diagnosis life-threatening diseases earlier than ever before has cost us local jobs and reduced research capabilities.

cook medical is a privately owned company with facilities around the world. it employs about 500 people in winston-salem, north carolina, where they focus on endoscopy medicine. since the medical device tax was excised in 2013, cook medical paid $13 million annually as a result of the company's pullback on capital improvements as well as research developments. and they wanted to move manufacturing capacity out of the united states. scott sewell for the company's winston-salem area told a newspaper if the medical device excise was repealed, they would look for a new plant in winston-salem. i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record this may

1 article from the "triad business journal." the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: it's clear that obamacare's excise tax has negatively impacted the people that live in north carolina's fifth district as well as people around the country and around the world. mr. speaker, this tax must be repealed and its harmful effects undone. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i recognize two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from colorado for yielding. i rise today to speak in opposition to the previous question in order to make in order a vote to re-nor the empty port import bank. for americans, the export-import bank means jobs. it means economic growth. failing to re-authorize ex-im

threatens american jobs, threatens american businesses, threatens our economy. supporting ex-im used to be a bipartisan issue. just read a little history. dwight eisenhower supported it, ronald reagan supported it. if you want a more recent example, george w. bush supported it. this never has been a partisan issue until just recently where even the house leadership, the speaker, i think, supports it, has now been captured by a small group of very far right-leaning ideologues to whom apparently much is owed because we can't get a floor vote on a piece of legislation supported by a majority of the house of representatives that helps american business and helps american workers. what's wrong with this picture? this makes no sense whatsoever. the export-import bank is an essential part of a growing

economy and particularly supporting american businesses to grow their exports and put americans to work. in my home state alone, 228 companies, $11 billion in export value are at risk if we don't re-authorize the export-import bank, and we have five days to do it. well, we could do it in five minutes if we defeat the previous question, bring to the floor of the house legislation h.r. 1031, that would re-authorize the export-import bank through 2022. let's let the will of the american people and frankly the will of the majority of the united states congress be manifest in our policy. a majority of congress supports the re-authorization of the export-import bank. bring a vote to the floor of the house and let's put america to work, support american business support american workers, support the

export-import bank. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i previously was brought up about the prevention fund which is being used as one of the offsets for the repeal of the independent payment advisory board, and i just wanted to give the congress a sense of some of the activities that have been funded under the secretary so-called prevention fund. a pickle ball. i didn't know what it was. i had to google it after it came to light in our committee. kickboxing kayaking zumba. a grant for sinage of bicycling. a grant for free pet newturing. a grant for free gardening. a grant for a soda tax in new york. block construction of job-creating fast food small

businesses. another grant to boost bike clubs. these are the types of activities that are being funded in the prevention fund not actual activities that would result in the prevention of disease. this is a good use of these dollars, and i urge adoption. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from wisconsin, the ranking member on the financial services subcommittee on monetary policy and trade, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: thank you so much. the clock is ticking on the global competitiveness of u.s. workers and the g.o.p. has yet, has yet, has yet to put a vote -- put to a vote the re-authorization of the export-import bank. the export-import bank levels the playing field globally for u.s. businesses to compete with

subsidized foreign compettors. -- competitors. our u.s. exporters will pay the price if this majority, this republican congress fails to re-authorize the bank. my milwaukee exporters will pay the price if this republican congress fails to re-authorize the bank. yes, deals will still be made with the other 60 or so credit agencies around the world but they will be done without u.s.-made goods and services. you know, it is so ironic that we have all kinds of deals being cut to get the partnership trade agreements with these specific countries, 12 different specific countries so we could export jobs but there are no deals being made so we can export u.s.-made goods and services to other parts of the world. that is probably why we have such a huge trade deficit. with the leadership of ranking

member waters representatives heck hoyer and i, we've introduced h.r. 1031, the promoting u.s. jobs through exports act. it makes targeted and prudent reforms to the bank that enhances its mission, including promoting additional small business participation greater transparency and improved governance. defeat the previous question, bring the import-export bank deal to the floor. the american people deserve an opportunity to work. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wisconsin yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire as to the time remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 13 minutes remaining. the gentleman from colorado has 12 minutes. mr. burgess: i'll reserve this time mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. 12 1/2 minutes for the gentleman from colorado. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.

mr. burgess: at this point i think i only have myself. mr. polis: very good. then i'll yield myself the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: first with regard to the comments from the gentleman from texas on the preventative health fund, i want to give a few examples of the important ways that that fund helps reduce health care costs. for instance expenditures on hospitals promoting breast-feeding, on breast and cervical cancer early awareness and diagnosis. so i mean, again, to support breast-feeding mothers is a demonstrable fact in reducing the incidents of disease in infants and promotes better health. with regard to early identification, breast cancer screening outreach through state, territorial and tribal

organizations. and making sure people have better compliance with their regime that can reduce health care costs. so there are a lot of items in there, but i'm confident if our bill were to pass, the bill i co-sponsored with the gentleman from texas clearly that $9 billion in savings is a losery. now, whether that would come back as a net program or not under the c.b.o. scoring, we need to pass our bill to see. but it wouldn't be $9 billion. maybe it would be $3 billion in savings. maybe it would be $1 billion. maybe it would be a negative amount because these expenditures could save more than they cost. because if you can early diagnosis breast and cervical cancer not only leads to batter outcome for the patient but saves a lot -- leads to a better outcome for the patient but saves a lot more money. people are able to successfully manage their chronic diseases and not wind up in emergency rooms at a very high cost.

we have before us no bones about it two more repeal -- partial repeals of the affordable care act. so far this year, the republicans have brought to the floor $586 billion in unpaid for tax extenders and special interest tax expenditures. those bills have blown through the sequestration caps. all while continuing to cut funding for education programs, violent prevention initiatives and medical research. this bill adds another $25 billion to that $586 billion. again, everybody likes to have their cake and eat it too, but unfortunately budgets have to work and numbers have to add up. and that's why i was particularly disappointed that the rules committee didn't allow my amendment that would have simply paid for the medical device tax repeal to come forward. instead, the republicans are

insisting on adding $25 billion on top of the $586 billion, expenditures they're blowing through the deficit with. increasing the size of the deficit by half a trillion dollars. this bill also provides for consideration of a bill that cuts $9 million from the preventative health initiatives, to repeal an advisory board. again, i would argue that we won't know if that's truly paid for or not until our other bill passes and i hope we can bring forward the bill i share with mr. burgess to allow for the proper scoring of that. so i'm ready to say i don't know if it's paid for or not. i suspect it's not. i suspect it might cost us more money in the long run to repeal the important expenditures around breast and cervical cancer, early diagnosis and chronic disease self-management but the only way to know that for sure would be to repeal --

to change the way that c.b.o. scores the bills to allow for preventative measures to show the savings that are reasonably estimated by experts absent any particular bias. . i think there's a lot of interest in reforminged advisory boards and i think -- reforming the advisory board and i think that's a valid conversation to have. what should its priorities be, what should the reporting process be, what should the membership be composed of? but repealing it and adding costs and preventing simple cost-saving recommendations from even coming to congress, how does that make sense? how does that further the goal of providing high-quality health care to the american people at the lowest cost possible? we also shouldn't be taking funding away from programs that help americans prevent injuries or illness in order to pay for the reveal -- repeal of an advisory board that makes nonbinding recommendations to congress. a vote for this rule is yet another vote for misplaced priorities, for increasing the federal deficit, for passing

policies that are at odds with the needs of the american people and constitute the 602nd time that this body has -- 62nd time that had body has chosen to repeal the affordable care act rather than move forward with a future-oriented agenda to help the american people. this is a vote to add billions of dollars to our deficit at the expense of the basic health care needs of the american people. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker, this body can do better. if we defeat this rule, we might have an opportunity to do something about the deficit. to do something about it by going back and getting a rule that if this body chooses to proceed with repealing the medical device tax and allows a commonsense way for that to be paid for, if we repeal this rule we can go back and look at improving the advisory panel

rather than repealing it in its entirety and making sure that if there are costs associated with that, that they're paid for in a real way rather than a way that is illosery. mr. speaker, if we defeat this rule, we can go back and bring forward mr. burgess' and my bill that would allow for proper scoring around preventive health care. that would allow a proper discussion on whether this way of paying for a repeal of the advisory panel is even a real way of paying for anything or not. for those reasons, mr. speaker, i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: mr. speaker we've talked a lot about the affordable care act here on the floor of this house. one of the reasons we've talked a lot about it is because, very famously, it was passed before we read it. we had to pass it to find out

what was in it. let me just talk about a couple of those things, because i think they're germane to our discussion today. this is june 17 around the country many members office's are being contacted by groups asking why congress itself isn't following the law -- member's offices are being contacted by groups asking why congress itself isn't following the law. i'm referring to subparagraph d. it says members of congress in the exchange, requirement, notwithstanding any other provision in law, after the effective date of this subtitle , the only health plans that the federal government may make available to members of congress shall be health plans that are number one, created under this act or, two, offered through an exchange established under this act. members of congress, the term member of congress means any member of the house of representatives or the senate. the fact of the matter is, most people don't follow the law. i did, mr. speaker.

and i think it was important to follow the law. i bought my health care on the individual market, healthcare.gov. started october 1 of 2013. you may remember that night. that was the night the fiscal year ended and the famous government shutdown began. i began early this morning in trying to sign up for the affordable care act because i knew as a member of congress we were supposed to sign up through healthcare.gov. an unsubsidized policy in the individual market. so i performed as indicated. it took 3 1/2 months for the check to clear the bank. it was one of the most uncomfortable, god-awful experiences i've ever been through in my life. but what's the final result? i have a bronze plan in the individual market and health care.com the federal fallback provision in the state of texas . mr. speaker, that plan cost $560 a month the first year that i was enrolled. and then it went up 24% the

next year, it's now up to $700 a month. for me. for an individual. these are after tax dollars. but you know the worst part, mr. speaker? the worst part is that the deductible is $6,000. some people have asked me, they say, well, gee, are you worried about the fact that the networks are so narrow on these plans that you can't see your doctor? i honestly don't know. i don't know if my doctor is included on the plan. i haven't looked. because i ain't going. at a d 6,000 deductible, -- at a $6,000 deductible, someone will have to drag me through the backdoor while i'm dying. we've created a group of people in this country who are functionally uninsured because the cost of their care is so high. had members of congress followed the law, they would be as aware of that as our constituents are. mr. speaker today's rule provides for the consideration of two bills, to begin to right

some of the many wrongs included in the affordable care act. h.r. 160, pree -- repealing the independent payment advisory board, charged with cutting medicare, and h.r. 1190, preeling the medical device tax -- repealing the medical device tax. these are two steps the house could take this week to help lower the rising cost of health care create under the president's health care law -- created under the president's health care law. i urge the adoption of the rule before us, the passage of the two important pieces of legislation. for that reason i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. all time is expired. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request a recorded vote. the yeas and nays. on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on the question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to the order of the house of june 16, 2015, i call up house concurrent resolution 55 and ask for its immediate

consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 55. concurrent resolution directing the president, pursuant to section 5-c of the war powers resolution, to remove united states armed forces deployed to iraq or syria on or after august 7 2014, other than armed forces required to protect united states diplomatic facilities and personnel from iraq and syria. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of tuesday june 15, 2015, the concurrent resolution is considered read. it shall be debatable for two hours, equally divided among and controlled by representative royce of california and representative engel of new york, and representative mcgovern of massachusetts, or their representative designees. the gentleman from california, mr. royce, the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, each will control 40 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i ask

unanimous consent that all members here may have five legislative days to submit statements or extraneous material for the record on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker i rise in opposition to house concurrent resolution 55. but while i am opposed to the resolution, i do want to commend its author, mr. mcgovern, for his constant and principled attention to the issue of military engagement in iraq and syria and the role of congress in making this decision and these are some of the most important and challenging issues that we face. that we struggle with as an institution. and i know the gentleman from massachusetts is frustrated. i have listened to him on the floor of the house. in many ways i share his frustrations. isis is making too many gains, critical cities have fallen,

but this resolution i believe will take us in the opposite direction of where u.s. policy should be. if the united states were to remove all of our forces from the theater as this resolution calls for isis would surely grow stronger. isis would surely continue on a process -- accelerate on a process of decimating all in its path. placing women under brutal oppression. and i have no doubt further strengthening our -- their position and further threatening our european allies. and even the u.s. homeland. more battlefield victories would support isis propaganda, which would support its recruitment, which would make it more deadly by the day. mr. speaker no one is eager

for this commitment. but isis is on the march and this radical jihadist group is taking more territory more weapons and more resources threatening the government in baghdad and indeed threatening to destabilize this entire critical region. now this house concurrent resolution would call for the unilateral withdrawal of u.s. forces from the fight against isis halting all u.s. strikes against the terrorist group in iraq and syria. it would also leave isis unchecked. not only unchecked by u.s. air power, but it would allow this brutal terrorist group, as i say, to gain strength, to destabilize a critical region, to create a safe haven from which isis can plot attacks against the united states. house concurrent resolution 55

has nothing to do with authorizing the use of military force against isis, but would unilaterally withdraw u.s. forces from the fight. last year debating another iraq measure offered by mr. mcgovern i said never has a terrorist organization itself controlled such a large resource-rich safe haven as isis dozen today. never has aist -- dozen -- does today. never have they had the cash which they do today which includes thousands of western passport holders. unfortunately it is worse today and just weeks ago ramadi, a city only 75 miles from iraq's capital was overrun by isis and by its suicide bombers who led that first wave. . isis' goals are very clear. wreck every person opposing it,

establish a caliphate and then fight to expand it. isis has unleashed a campaign of brutal and depraved violence, not only against shiia muslims and fellow sunnis who do not share their radical beliefs, but against vulnerable religions and ethnic minorities. as one testified before the foreign affairs committee today, and i'll quote we commissionerish ethnic and religious diversity. isis hates it. and they late in some of the most brutal ways possible -- hate in some of the most brutal ways possible. mr. speaker, many not realize that iraq and syria are homes to dozens of religious and ethnic minorities with ancient cultures with very deep roots and these communities are under mortal threat in their ancestral homelands. the mass execution of men the

enslavement of women and young girls as concubines, the destruction of religious sites is part of the isis effort to destroy these communities. their pran is to make it as if -- their plan is to make it as if those societies never existed, those religions in those regions never existed. in fact, isis maintains a special betalon, they call it the demolition battalion, charged with destroying religious sites and artifacts that it considers radical. and isis has used the virtual caliphate on the internet to recruit foreign fighters at an unprecedented rate. some 20,000 of their fighters are in fact from off-shore, are foreign fighters drawn to the area from some 90 countries and that is the numbers that now

are swelling its ranks. according to intelligence estimates, this includes at least 150 americans that we know of. yet over the last 10 or so months, the administration has put forth a reluctant and half-hearted and ineffective effort to assist our partners there on the ground. i think we all recognize that this is up to the iraqi government to fight to win this. we understand that. they're in the lead but they desperately need help and i'm not prepared to say that we shouldn't be providing any military support to the kurds strung along 180 mile -- several hundred-mile front with 180,000 soldiers, 30% of those kurdish soldiers are female and those young women are down there with small arms trying to hold off isis fighters along

that line. i am not prepared to say that we should not be providing any military support for those kurds or for the iraqi forces any air support whatsoever. and that's what this resolution does. it didn't have to be this dire. well over a year ago when isis was building its force in the desert in syria it wasn't bombed and devastated when it could have been. it should have been. many called for an effort at that point to have an air campaign by the u.s. and our partners to pummel isis as it moved across the desert in these long columns and begin the process to take city after city. it came out of syria and first it headed to fallujah and there was a call to use airpower to

suppress and destroy isis then. that step was not taken and for 14 separate cities, city after city all the way to mosul we watched every time the request be made for airpower and that was turned down. well, we are where we are now and frankly the air campaign by the u.s. and our partners isn't pummeling the enemy now as it should. daily air strikes against the islamic state are 1/6 of what they were in the first campaign against the taliban back in 2001. u.s. special forces should be authorized to call in air strikes. most americans would be puzzled to learn the canadian special forces are doing this but we are not. pilots complain of having their hands tied. it has been estimated that 3/4 of u.s. aircraft return to base without discharging their weapons because of overly restrictive rules of engagement that don't allow them to engage isis.

as one observer notes with just piecemeal attacks, the administration has been systematically squandering our airpower advantage. i think that is right. and adding to the problem the regional forces on the ground that these air strikes are supposed to be supporting are badly undersupplied. after 10 months of fighting, there are still too many reports that kurdish our allies, are outgunned on the front lines against isis. i met with their foreign minister three times now as he's made this case. again, that 30% of his battalions, kurdish battalions are female battalions and they can't obtained the anti-tank weapons, the artillery, the mortars to use against isis in this battle. while u.s. forces have been training some iraqis, that has been done way beyond the front lines and rather than pairing up with smaller units and

deploying with them to push them to the front -- and that's, by the way a technique that's proven effective in afghanistan and iraq in the past -- it this has not been done. so u.s. advisors are unable to bolster iraqi units when they come under attack or to call in air strikes by u.s. planes. we don't have the capacity to do that, and that limitation tragically helped ramadi fall. mr. speaker, our friends and allies and partners in this region of the world are in serious trouble from the threat of isis. they need our help. employing our airpower like we should, getting those weapons to the front lines that are needed by the kurds putting more u.s. special forces into play would help turn this around, but that's not at all what this measure calls for. as i say, it's quite the

opposite. it calls for the president to remove united states armed forces deployed to iraq or syria on august 7 or after. the foreign affairs committee has held many hearings on isis and on the instability in the region. we haven't heard any witness make the case that complete withdrawal is what is needed. what would happen to iraq, what would happen to jordan what would happen to civilians in the theater? i think we can all agree that situation would compound. this is the question in front of us today. do we pull the modest number of our modest presence out of this theater and see isis run wild across the iraqi desert with no

help from the united states? i don't think so. there is no military-only answer to the isis challenge. the iraqi government must do far more to reconcile with sunnis, building confidence and empowering them to take on isis. isis must be attacked financially and its propaganda must be relentlessly challenged, and arab leaders need to lead. just as there is no military-only answer, there is no answer without a military component of helping the kurds and helping those who are fighting isis. and right now the u.s. role, as much as we may regret it, is needed desperately. mr. speaker, in the national security interest of the united states, i ask all members to oppose house concurrent resolution 55. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to

h.con.res 55, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: let me first say that i believe congress needs to do its job and pass an aumf, which is the authorization for the use of military force. we should have acted on this months ago, so this is the right message but with only the highest respect to my colleague from massachusetts, i believe that withdrawal by a date certain at this time is the wrong policy. this measure would direct the president to remove all u.s. armed forces deployed to iraq or syria since august 7 2014, except those needed to protect american diplomatic facilities and personnel. that's no way to defeat isis or to help the people of iraq and syria. i cannot vote for a policy i do not support. however i share the frustration voiced by mr. mcgovern, ms. lee and many

others. i've said time and time again that congress should pass a new aumf. we owe it to the american people. we should do our job and we owe it to our men and women in uniform. congressional inaction on an aumf is inexcusable. congress has had months to consider the president's language, and it's well past time we act. right now the administration is using the resolution we passed after september 11, 2001, as the legal justification to fight isis. this is deeply problematic. first of all, the 2001 aumf has none of the limits many of us are seeking. the american people have no stomach for another large-scale open-ended commitment of american troops in the middle east. it was our disastrous intervention in iraq last decade that set the stage for the rise of isis in the first place. this is a new challenge, and we

need new parameters to define our mission and our goals. at the same time using a 2001 authorization for a 2015 conflict sets a terrible precedent. what happens in five years when the next administration does the same thing and five years after that and five years after that? we didn't vote for perpetual war and we need a new aumf. so we cannot allow that outcome . with a new aumf, i hope it will be a bipartisan effort. i hope it will be the heal mark of our work on the foreign a-- hallmark of our work on the foreign affairs committee. i commend my friend, mr. mcgovern, for taking a stand on this issue and we are in agreement that the united states must avoid another failed open-ended war in the middle east. but there is a role for the united states in this region and we should not just vote to withdrawal. i believe that would be cutting

off our nose to spite our face. the united states supported the iraqis and the syrians who are fighting isis. it's a difficult fight but i don't think we can walk away. with american leadership we were able to prevent a wholesale slaughter of the azitty people. with american help, our iraqi partners were able to control the mosul dam which if breached by isis, could ended up in death and displacement of 200,000 people. with american assistance, the iraqi security forces and the moderate syrian opposition are taking back territory. too slowly but they're taking back territory, particularly in the south. the foreign affairs committee just had a hearing earlier this morning and we saw horrific situations of children being gassed in syria. there's no good side in syria. we've got to somehow let the

free syria army or the ribbles -- rebels the well-vetted moderate rebels, we have to help them and that's why i believe there's still a role for us to play. a withdrawal by turning our heads away because we're fed up and disgusted i think is not the right move. this fight's far from over and the united states has a critical role to play. we need an authorization that defines a role for the united states, a limited role, and that's the measure i will support. i again do want to thank mr. mcgovern for bringing this issue to the floor. he's a thoughtful, effective colleague. while i appreciate his resolution, i commend him for focusing this congress on this important issue. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of house concurrent resolution 55, which comes

before the house today under the provisions of the war powers resolution. along with my colleagues walter jones and barbara lee we introduced this bipartisan bill to force a debate on how congress' failed to carry out its constitutional duty to authorize our military engagement in iraq and syria. last august the president authorized air strikes against the islamic state in iraq and syria. for over 10 months, the united states has been engaged in hostilities in iraq and syria without debating an authorization for this war. . on february 11 of this year, over four months ago, the president sent to congress the text for an authorization for the use of military force on combating the islamic state in iraq, syria and elsewhere. yet congress has failed to act on that aumf. or bring an alternative to the house floor. even though we continue to authorize and appropriate money for sustained military operations in those countries.

this is unacceptable. this house appears to have no problem sending our uniformed men and women into harm's way it. appears to have no problem -- way. it appears to have no problem spending billions of dollars for the arms equipment and air power to carry out these wars but it can't step up to the plate and take responsibility for these wars. our service men and women are brave and dedicated. congress, however, is guilty of moral cowardess. the republican leadership of this house wines and complains from the sidelines -- whines and complains from the sidelines and shirks its constitutional duties to bring an aumf to the floor of this house, debate it and vote on it. this resolution requires the president to withdraw u.s. troops from iraq and syria within 30 days or no later than the end of this year, december 31 2015, if this house approvings this resolution, congress would still have six months in which to do the right thing and bring an aumf before

the house and senate for debate and action. six months. either congress needs to live up to its responsibilities and authorize this war, or by its continuing neglect and indifference, our troops should be withdrawn and come home. it's that simple. two weeks ago general john allen, the u.s. envoy for the u.s.-led coalition fighting isil said that this fight may take, and i quote, a generation or more, end quote. and according to the pentagon, we have spent more than $2.74 billion in the fight against the islamic state. that's roughly $9.1 million each and every day. we have approximately 3,500 boots on the ground and that number is rising. if we're going to invest -- if we're going to invest a generation or more of our blood and our treasure in this war, and if we're going to continue to tell our armed forces that we expect them to fight and die in these wars, it seems to me the least we can do is stand up and vote to authorize these

wars. or we should end them. we owe that to the american people. we owe that to our troops and their families. and we owe that to the oath of office that each of us took to uphold the constitution of the united states. mr. speaker we're going to hear all kinds of crazy today about this resolution. some members will say that it demands the withdrawal of our troops in 30 days. well, that's true if you only read half a sentence in the bill. the other half makes clear that the president has until the end of the year to withdraw our troops. some members will claim that this resolution will undercut our troops while they are carrying out bombing campaigns and training iraqi and syrian soldiers under dangerous conditions. they will claim it will deny the iraqis and the kurds our critical support in fighting against the brutal terror and threat of isis. they will claim that it leaves

isis unchecked by u.s. air power and allows them to overrun the region. mr. speaker, the truth is that it is precisely these threats and these challenges that make this debate so urgent. with such compelling issues at hand, how can congress stand by and do nothing? how can congress not have this debate and vote on an authorization for this war? by setting a clear deadline, congress cannot -- deadline congress cannot ignore, this resolution provides a strong guarantee that congress will finally do its job. that congress will honor its duty to our troops and all americans, by debating and voting on an authorization for this war. our troops deserve a congress that has the courage to stand with them. i see the courage and sacrifice of our uniformed men and women. but i see nothing but cowardess from this leadership in this house. if they believe we should send our military forces to iraq and syria to fight isis and possibly die over there then we should do our duty. we should do our job and bring an aumf to the house floor, debate it and take some

responsibility for this war. that's all this resolution is trying to do. give the leadership of this house a deadline that even they can't ignore. either an aumf -- either enact an aumf over the next six months or withdraw our forces from iraq and syria. one or the other. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: before recognizing the gentlewoman from missouri, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. royce: again, the resolution before us today has nothing to do with an authorization for the use of military force. it is a withdrawal resolution. so i don't want to leave some of the oversimplified authorization use of military force rhetoric here unaddressed. the real question that the proponents are begging, what should the united states be doing to combat isis?

the answer of today's resolution would be nothing. we should withdraw from combating the isis threat. that would be irresponsible and dangerous. i don't disagree that the current state of the legal authorities the president is using against isis is less than ideal from our constitution's perspective. but that -- institution's perspective. but that does not equal illegal and unconstitutional. i say this as someone who is deeply concerned about the president's weak and unstrategic response to the isis threat. the president has short circuited this debate by claiming complete authority under prior statutes to use our armed forces against isis. his administration has made the case that isis, which was previously known as al qaeda in iraq, quote has been an enemy of the united states within the scope of the 2001 authorization continuously since at least

2004 unquote. he's made that case that isis grew out of al qaeda in iraq and in point of fact, that is where -- and, in point of fact, that's where isis came from. no aumf we could draft could give the president more operational authority than he already claims. indeed, the draft text he sent asks us to constrain the authority that he already has and complicated, by the way, the offer to reach consensus. just last week this body considered a defense appropriations amendment that would have used congress' -- i'm going to ask for an additional two minutes. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: that thank would have used congress' -- that would have used congress' constitutional power of the purse to force the aumf issue. cutting off funding if congress does not enact an isis-specific aumf within the next year.

that proposal failed in this institution. so the reality is that congress has made decisions that amount to a practical view disagreeing with the authors of this resolution, allowing the president to use current force authorities against isis is preferable to refusing to confront the threat isis poses to our national security altogether. now, i'll continue to work with ranking member eliot engel and all of our colleagues to see if we can find a way forward on a revise and updated authorization focused on the vicious and growing threat posed by isil. by isis. that is what we need to be working on together. but merely acting without a credible way forward is foolhardy, it's not brave, it's foolhardy. a divisive and unsuccessful aumf process would be perceived

by our allies, our partners and our enemies as a no-confidence vote in the fight against isis, resulting in a significant blow to the national security of the united states. now allow me, mr. speaker, to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from missouri mrs. hartzler, who chairs the armed services subcommittee on oversight and investigations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mrs. hartzler: thank you, thank you mr. chairman. while i respect my colleague who offered this amendment, i oppose this resolution and urge my colleagues to vote in opposition. this unwise resolution will call for the unilateral withdrawal of u.s. forces from the fight against isil and leave this growing evil to continue to expand, terrorizing millions. this resolution would do more than halt all u.s. strikes against the terrorist group in iraq and syria, removing the approximately 3,500 u.s. trainers from iraq it.

would unwisely deny -- iraq. it would unwisely deny the support to fight against the brutal and barbaric terrorist group leaving -- group, leaving them alone to stop this threat. this resolution would leave isil unchecked by u.s. air power allow the vicious terrorist group to gain strength further destabilizing the region by threatening allies such as jordan, and create a largely uncontested safe haven for which isil could plot attacks against the united states. it would allow the continued brutality of a group who beheads innocents, including americans, forces women and children into sexual slavery destroys religious heritage sites and targets christians and others. this resolution has nothing to do with authorizing the use of military force against isil. instead this resolution simply unilaterally withdraws our u.s. forces from fighting back against this evil. i urge opposition to this

resolution. thank you mr. chairman, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you mr. speaker. let me again say that what we have here, as well intentioned as i know it is is a unilateral withdrawal, clean and simple. i understand the frustration but this is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. i think we need to be very, very careful before we do these things unilaterally. it's my pleasure to now call on mr. connolly of virginia for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker and i thank my good friend, eliot engel from new york, the distinguished ranking member, the full committee of the foreign affairs committee, and my friend, ed royce, the chairman of that full committee, both distinguished men. and i echo theirentment ises --

their sentiments. mr. speaker, i rise -- their sentiments. mr. speaker, i rise today in reluctant opposition to the measure offered by mr. mcgovern, who's sincerity can never be questioned in this body. i understand the purpose underlying this legislation. and i identify with the frustration that it expresses as i think do all of us. pro ponalts of the measure want -- proponents of the measure want congress to debate and vote on the use of military force in iraq and syria and so do i. proponents of this measure believe that congress has failed to perform its constitutional duty by not taking up the authorization of the use of military force against the islamic state of iraq and the levant. so you do i -- so do i. in fact i believe the failure to debate an aumf against isil is a continuation of a sad but 60-year pattern of congress abrogating one of its most fundamental constitutional roles and responsibilities.

for an institution that constantly laments its subjugation at the hands of the executive branch, its repeat from its constitutional duty on this order is jaw-dropping. it's time congress make clear the circumstances and parameters under which we would once again authorize engagement for our and by our men and women in uniform in this tumultuous region of the world, or for that matter anywhere. but one cannot endorse the tactic of this measure. this is constructed to be a something that threaten us -- to be something that threatens us, congress, with the automatic withdrawal of our forces in the region in order to force congressional action with an aumf. congress should not heed such a

message, nor should it kater to such a -- cater to such a sword hanging over our head in order to do our jobs. a mission with no clear mandate and conflicting objectives is hardly a formula for military or political victory. and we should welcome a robust and transparent debate on the matter of an aumf, but not at any cost on the battlefield itself. a withdrawal, as this resolution does mandated irrespective of battlefield reality, battlefield progress lately against isis a withdrawal mandated irrespective of our commitments to the kurds, or for that matter, to the iraqi government itself, that would be irresponsible and unworthy of a great power however noble the underlying cause is. we have responsibilities on the ground. this resolution is drafted, as they say in latin, all other

things being equal that is to say, in a perfect world. we don't live in a perfect world. our engagements are what they are. our commitments are what they are. and i don't share the distinguished chairman's criticism of this administration. it's a americay region to begin with -- murky region to begin with. our leverage is limited, our choices are dark and complicated. but we are making progress in the region as we speak. to simply ignore all of that and insist we withdraw, in my view would be irresponsible and unworthy of this great nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. . mr. mcgovern: this resolution that we are debating today would have no standing. and i guess my question is, what do we have to do? what do members of this house both democrats and republicans have to do to force the

leadership to bring to the floor an aumf so we can do our job. that's all we are asking for and this is a blunt instrument to do it, but i don't know what else it will take to force this issue. we owe it to our servicemen and women to have this debate and this vote. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. jones: i thank mr. mcgovern for the time. as many people have said today even those for and against the resolution, we have a constitutional duty, that duty is to debate. so i want to quote james madison, to put the context on what we are trying to say today. the power to declare war including debating the causes of war is vested in the legislature. not the executive branch, but the legislature. the frustration that we have

felt goes back to august of 2014 when jim mcgovern and barbara lee and walter jones wrote asking the speaker of the house to allow us to have a debate. that's why mr. mcgovern, bar ra lee and i have put this resolution in today. we wouldn't be talking about the middle east if it weren't for this resolution. in september i sent my own letter to speaker boehner and asked for a full debate on authorization to use military force in the region, none of these letters have been answered, none of them. last september speaker boehner told the "new york times" that he wanted to wait until 2015 to bring an aumf to the floor of the house for a debate and vote to avoid bringing it up during a lame duck session. ok.

i can accept that. it makes good sense. in december, speaker boehner said the house republicans would work with the president to get a aumf request if the president sent one to congress. he did send us one in february. most people, democrat and republican didn't like what was in the aumf, at least it was a vehicle for debate. but then in february, when the speaker of the house received it he didn't do anything with it. nothing has happened. as has been said by speakers before me, last month, jim mcgovern and barbara lee sent another letter asking for a debate. nothing happened. that's the reason this resolution is on the floor. it's because, as madison said house, do your job. he didn't say executive branch, do your job. he said the legislative branch.

that is us. we need to do this on behalf of the constitution and on behalf of our young men and women in uniform who will give their life for their country. it has been 314 days since president obama started launching air strikes and putting troops in iraq and syria without authorization by congress. according to the pentagon, we have spent $9 million a day for a total of $2.7 billion. isn't this another reason that we should be debating the middle east and our role in the middle east? i think so. let me repeat james madison. the power to declare war including the power of judging the causes of war -- may i have half a minute. gomb mr. mcgovern: i yield 30 seconds. mr. jones: i would like to say i bring these pictures to the floor of those who give their life for this country.

this is a flag-draped coffin being pulled off of a transport plane in dover, delaware, and it is time we meet our obligation and debate this issue of war because we are not doing our job and owe it to the american people and to the constitution and to those who wear the uniform. i thank you, mr. mcgovern for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to mr.|wilson a member of the committee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. wilson: thank you for your leadership. i'm opposed to the house concurrent resolution which would withdraw forces who have provided regional stability to protect american families. this resolution would undermine

america's campaign to fight terrorists overseas and end our campaign and stop our training and equipping of the tribal forces as well as moderate syrian opposition forces and abandon our commitment to the partners in the region. the resolution would promote isil's momentum and create safe havens for terrorists and create tehran's influence that declares death to america, death to israel. it would allow there would be a greater threat to american families with attacks from new york to boston and creating safe havens to enable more attacks. we must remember september 11. unilateral withdrawal will not stop the war. the resolution does not consider the situation on the ground in iraq or syria or the recommendations to the joint chiefs of staff.

this morning, chairman martin dempsey said withdrawing the troops would be a mistake. as the grateful dead of two sons who have served in iraq, i would prefer a clear strategy of victory. we should not abandon the efforts of peace through strength. i want to work with members to develop a better approach and my hope it will accomplish this. the only course of action to take steps jihadist extremists overseas. i'm opposed to the house concurrent resolution and urge my colleagues to vote against it . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to a rising star on the foreign affairs committee, mr. boil of pennsylvania.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boyle: i thank the chair and ranking member and i want to sponsor the author of this resolution, mr. mcgovern. thanks to him, we finally have a chance to discuss and debate this issue right here on the house floor. before i entered this body when i was a state legislator and a candidate, i noticed back last august september as the isis movement was growing in iraq and syria and other parts of the middle east, the british parallelment rushed back to london to debate a war resolution. i was disappointed as an american citizen and quite frankly shocked that the united states congress did not do exactly the same thing. to come here and outline and debate the parameters by which

we would authorize the president to wage war against this evil and barbaric threat. unfortunately, that did not happen. several months ago, i think it might have been back in january, president obama did submit to the foreign affairs committee of which i'm proudly a member, an authorization to use military force. unfortunately, that aumf got attacked by some on the right as insufficient in some areas and got attacked by some on the left as insufficient in other areas. both sides have legitimate discussions and concerns. what went wrong after that is that we didn't have that discussion or debate right here on the house floor. it was too easy for members of this body to just say, this was too difficult. we're going to let the president

handle it and we're going to shirk our responsibility. that is wrong. mr. speaker, i do not support -- let me be clear the resolution that's in front of us and will not be voting for it. i think an outright withdrawal of troops within the next six weeks would be a terrible mistake and that's not the approach we should take. i do believe it's about time we do our duty and responsibility and have this discussion and debate. it is about time we the congress of the united states, on a bipartisan basis come up with an actionable plan to fight and defeat isis, one that is consistent with our values and at the same time one that does not inadvertently commit us to five and 10 years down the road responsibilities that we do not envision today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel who believes congress ought to do its job and pass the aumf. mr. rangel: ask unanimous consent to revise and stepped my remarks. mr. mcgovern, mr. jones ms. lee, i thought the house would be screaming at the opportunity to justify sending men and women to a different part of the world that we believe is of danger to the entire community. i'm so amazed that people are saying that this resolution calls for the immediate withdrawal of our troops. i don't read it that way. because i don't know of anything that justifies them being there and this could be screaming for a reason why the administration and members of congress want

these troops there. i have no clue as to why people believe that these people have been fighting each other for thousands of years is a threat to my nation's national security. i don't know of any of my constituents that goes to sleep at night worried about isis invading their community. i do know because i'm old enough to remember that when the japanese struck pearl harbor immediately president roosevelt called the congress to declare war and america with pride, came out to support our nation and our president. now, i don't see the connection between isis and being struck by japanese and germans, but i know one thing, when an american dice

when they lose their lives, when we send them overseas, when they come back wounded, we have an obligation and this body to justify why we've done it. i may be wrong, but the reason i think we run away from this responsibility is because we don't really feel the pain of the people we're sending all over the world and exposing them to losing their lives. and why don't we feel it? don't we say thank you for your service? do we thank the people who don't come back? do we explain and go to the funerals that i go to, as to why we're there? to explain if the president of the united states and the members of this house believe it's important for them to be

here. all you have to do is come here declare war or justify why the security of the united states is being threatened. and i then will be prepared to send somebody else's kids to fight this war to protect the rest of our country. we don't have a draft. i ask for an additional 30 seconds. mr. mcgovern: yield 30 seconds. mr. rangel: i conclude by saying that when issues are serious enough for us to draft other people's kids, when it is serious enough for us to say that we aren't going to borrow money from communist china to pay for these wars, then i can be convinced even if i disagree, that when this congress and this president believes my country's being threatened, you count me in.

until such time, we're waiting to hear about the threat to our national security so that we -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin. mr. zeldin: only in congress do you have a resolution to authorizize the use of force because you want to authorize the use of force. it is it's pretty insulting that you'd propose a resolution to withdraw troops and then accuse the other side of cowardice. there needs to be more of a strategy to defeat isis or lack

thereof. we have a duty here in congress to set up our troops to succeed, not fail. there has been a lot of debate with regard to the authorization and use of military force. i'm proud to serve on the foreign affairs committee. chairman royce has had multiple hearings, discussing the authorization for the use of military force. secretary kerry was before the committee, he was asked, is this authorization -- does this authorization authorize offensive action? he said no. there was a five paragraph letter since with the authorization request talking about the need to use special operations forces and we can't get a straight answer from this administration as to whether or not he's referring to ours. yes, we have a duty to set up our troops to succeed and not fail. we had a marine general in front of the foreign affairs committee. when asked whether or not our general in charge of our troops overseas in iraq that general has the ability to authorize the mission to take out abu bauk or

abu ghadi, he had a paragraph that said the yen can make a recommendation. what's further insulting is just how many people don't even know the name of that two-star general. not only does he not have the flexibility and resources he needs to accomplish the mission, from the administration that is in charge right now led by the command for the chief, my constituents, americans, don't even know that gentleman's name. yes, there has been a lot of debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. zell din: we have a need to -- mr. zeldin: we have a need to protect our troops. that's why i support this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i agree that congress should do its job and pass a new aumf. the question is, is this the best way to do it? we ought to pass the right aumf

not just any aumf. we're told that we should force the issue. i had a friend who used to say be careful what you wish for. if we pass this resolution, it's more than possible that republican leadership will force through language that we on this side of the aisle cannot accept something that does not have the limits the democrats are seeking or worse, would just ratify the administration's argument that the 2001 aumf applies to isil. we need to pass an aumf i agree, but we need to pass the right aumf, even if that means we can't do it within six months. i hope we can get together and do that and we should. that's why i think this debate is good. but i think passing any aumf is like buying a anything a poke and i'm not ready to go down that line. i reserve the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, we should have passed an aumf

before we get into this -- got into this latest war. we've been at it for 10 month. we're asking congress to do its job in the next six months. how much longer do we want? with that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for two minutes. mr. massie: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts. i think some words from james madison are instructive to this debate. he said, in no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature and not to the executive department. because the objection of such a mixture of heterogenerals you powers, the trust would be too great for any one man. in war, a physical force is to be created and it is the executive which is to direct it. in war, the public treasures are to be unlocked and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. hence it has grown into an axiom

that the executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war. hence it is the practice of all states in proportion as they are free to disarm that propensity of its influence. that was a warning that he gave us and unfortunately, after being in this conflict for several years without an authorization from congress, we have devolved into the distaupian condition that he warned us about. i don't think anybody in this body seeks to weaken our powers or give them to the president. what we're debating here is when to have the authorization for use of military force or declaration of war. the time to have that was two years ago. years ago, before the president acted. and so to the people who are against this resolution i say, you could be right. you might be right. if this resolution fails, i hope you're right that this resolution wasn't necessary.

and we do assert our constitutional prerogative, our responsibility and have that debate and therefore instruct the president on the reasons for this engagement. and what his directives are. and so, with that, i just want to remind my colleagues this is a strategy, this is a tactic, a parliamentary tactic that's necessary to force the debate and let's have the debate. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge poe, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the chairman for the time. i, like the author of this resolution, am concerned about our troops that have been in iraq and afghanistan for a long time.

in my office, i have photographs of the 37 texans that have been killed in iraq or afghanistan. of all races. both sexes. all branches of the service. here we are years later, we're still there. but i'm also concerned about this group of isis. the question is, is isis a national security threat to the united states? i believe that it is. they are doing things to other people that we haven't seen in world history since the barbarians. and they are doing things much worse than that. isis wants to establish a call fat in the middle east. it wants to kill us in the united states. they've made that clear. and if isis is a national security threat to the u.s., which i believe it is, then let's have a plan to defeat them. a plan now. why are we waiting years to make

this decision? have the debate on the house floor. national security threat, yes, go after them. if not, then do something else. meanwhile, people, -- meanwhile people of all nations are dying. you know, i believe that isis will continue as long as there's not someone to stop them. it's in our national security interest to defeat them. the united states need to have a plan. people are dying from all nations. we need to make a decision. we need to make a decision as soon as possible. and we need to pick a horse and ride it and we need to do it as well. but this issue, this bill, is not the answer to do that. that weakens us, it weakens our national security to pass this legislation. i oppose it. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expyred. the gentleman from california

reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida ms. fran tell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. engel. mr. speaker, this debate is personal to me. i watched my son ben a proud united states marine, sent off to two wars. afghanistan and iraq. my family was blessed. he returned safely. both sides of the aisle know the battle, the price of the battle. too many killed, too many deeply scarred, too many lives of loved ones disrupted. trillions of dollars spent. the reputation of our country at stake. sometimes for good reasons, and sometimes in tragic error. and i will agree with those who say that when terror strikes in

the world it is our concern and it does require our leadership. and there are times that we must risk brave lives to save many more. but with that said, when i came to washington i vowed not to send anyone else's son or daughter in harm's way unless i understood the mission and the end game too. we owe this to all our children and that is why i urge my colleagues to take the time to deliberate and debate on the use of force against the terrorists who threaten the security of our country and our allies. congress has no greater responsibility. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, article 1, section 8 of the united states constitution is clear. congress alone shall have the power to declare war and make no mistake, the current campaign against isis is a war. mr. speaker, our esteemed colleague from texas made a very cogent argument about why we need clarity. the inability to have a clear plan is based upon the fact that congress has not yet articulated an authorization to use force that would lay out the parameters and the extent of what we would expect the president to do. now the president says he's -- he has the authorization under the 2001 and 2002. ambiguity clearly, is present. i disagree with the president on those as an authorization. i've argued for more than 10 months that our military operations against isis need their own authorization. the president did his part he, submitted a draft to us in

february. since then, we've had a few committee hearings but no real action. leadership in both houses of the senate, both houses have refused to schedule votes on this issue either in committee or on the floor. that is unacceptable. we've already run up significant costs 2. -- $2.7 billion on operations to continue the fight against isis and i-- in iraq and syria. and we've begun delivering $1.7 billion of weapons. more importantly, we've lost seven service members already. this chas -- this has to change. this resolution is to force us, the congress, to uphold our constitutional duty to debate and vote on the authorization for the use of force in iraq and syria and i have no doubt that if this resolution passes, an appropriate authorization to use force will be passed and will have claire -- and we'll have clarity as to the scope and conduct of this war. i thank my colleagues for introducing this resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california

yields. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. holding: i want to thank the chairman for the time. mr. speaker, i rise to oppose the resolution in front of us today. if passed, the pressure we, the united states, have been able to apply against isis would be stopped and our allies in the region would be left out in the cold. there's no doubt about the true wickedness of isis in both iraq and syria. their twisted views and thirst for blood have spread instability in the middle east leaving a wake of destruction. the united states along with our partners have struggled to beat back isis' advances and the adoption of this resolution would effectively end our operations against isis, thus creating a direct threat to our national security and our

interests. mr. speaker this resolution is misguided and unwise and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields. the gentleman from california reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for three minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the resolution brought to the floor by my colleague mr. mcgovern. no one disputes the horrific nature of the activities that are being described today and the sickening violence in this region of the world no one disputes they must be defeated. the question is, what is the best strategy to defeat them and what authorization is required to accomplish this objective? this is exactly the purpose of a full, thoughtful debate on the use of military force.

my constituents expect congress to do its job. and we have failed for four months to act on the president's draft for the authorization of the use of military force. there is no more serious duty that we have than the declaration of war. i thank my friend from massachusetts for taking an action intended to force the house to perform institutional responsibility and debate the use of mill fair -- military force in iraq and syria. this resolution this resolution will force the house to do what it has failed to do. over the past 14 years the united states has lost heroes. mr. speaker, i'm deeply concerned about the possibility that we could continue to commit more brave american men and women in uniform to a conflict without considering, seriously debating and properly authorizing that use of military force.

allowing this action to continue without a real public debate is failing our most solemn responsibility as members of congress. this is the only way that we will develop and implement a successful strategy, a rigorous debate in full public view. we absolutely must ensure that any additional involvement in any way has clearly defined goals and objectives, is properly limited in scope is fully explained to and supported by the american people. that is what mr. mcgovern's resolution attempts to do, to force this house over the next several months to undertake its constitutional responsibility to debate, to carefully consider and to ultimately authorize the use of military force. we should not shirk this responsibility. i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for giving us the opportunity to make our voices heard and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to dress the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: this hour, this minute, this second ace actually a gift to the american people. i thank the proponents of this resolution because it recognizes first and above all that this little document the constitution, albeit small creates mountains of responsibility on behalf of the american people. this moment, this minute, this second we are giving the american people their due and their respect, and that is to acknowledge that there must be a full debate on sending our treasure continuously to iraq and syria.

there is no divide between us on the vialness of isis and the terrorist groups and the willingness of american people to be sympathetic and helping the iraqis and syrians and those who are suffering and bleeding. but after 6,000 wounded, hundreds who have been killed, particularly in my state, and thousands more across the nation, that we have to find the pathway where all of us know what we're doing. this is an important resolution. we need to to debate it and our soldiers need to be protected and ultimately brought home. i yield back. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois who served in the us air force in iraq and afghanistan and calling for air strikes against isis.

mr. kinzinger: i thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue for the long time that we have been having to deal with this. i'm surprised -- we watch the news and see what's happening overseas and from afar and see the human tragedy that's occurring and we are here debating a resolution to withdraw all military actions from the middle east at a time when we see utter human tragedies. this is not the time to halt military operations. i would like to speak out quickly on an issue that underlines this whole debate. there are some that believe that if our foreign policy was simply nicer, if our foreign policy was more accommodating and less focused on military power then our enemies would view america in a much different light or we would be facing problems that we are today, or we wouldn't be facing them at all. this is disengagement in the

world and represents at best a naive world view and it is certainly an illusion. as we debate the merits of this resolution we have a case study in the disengagement. president went against a red line in syria and he was able to exit and allow assad give up his chemical weapons. when we saw that engagement by the united states, we didn't see a peaceful assad emerge. we saw the same brutal dictator that murdered his own people and continue to be brutal and murdersome. before we withdrew troops completely from iraq, many implord the president to leave a force and we didn't do it. and we have the next generation of al qaeda named isis. but this is what we see.

i think it is fine to have a debate about aumf in this chamber and we should. what the president gave us was an aumf and limited the ability of the next president of the united states to fight and destroy isis and i won't be a party to tying the president's hands. you know, i was in iraq just a few months ago and i saw the human tragedy that occurred. and stood in a refugee camp and a little girl explained to me how her parents were killed by isis and she ran away. and i realize the important role that the united states plays. the unfortunate burden we must bear for world security. mr. speaker, we either stand up and fight isis now or we sit on our knees and cower.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, senior member of the foreign affairs committee mr. brad sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. sherman: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it is unacceptable that we have not debated in committee and on the floor of this house an aumf and a foreign policy designed to fit current circumstances. designed to fit an assad that has killed nearly 200,000 of his own people designed to fit isis, which either is or isn't a part or a former part of al qaeda. instead, we operate under a resolution passed in the wake of the attacks in 2001. but the resolution before us, i do not think, is the answer to

the fact that congress is not debating a new aumf. the reason i rise to oppose it is because i urge members to read it. it says that all forces must be withdrawn in 30 days unless there is some threat to their security. 30 days. it says that it ends all deployment but it's not clear how it applies to air force operations or naval air operations presumably, we would stop all bombing under all circumstances. how does it apply to the -- to the rights of the president under current law to deploy our forces for 60 to 90 days if there is further outrage from the assad regime? we need a new resolution that is

-- that does congress' best job to deal with the circumstances. what we don't need is the idea of blaming obama for everything constitutes a foreign policy strategy. it is the bush administration that left -- that stalled and left malaki in power. it is malaki that would not allow a resideal force. would we have gone to war if he expelled our forces? i have yet to hear that being blamed by the blame obama side. we cannot leave our troops in a country. the great problem with iraq today is what malaki did to that country and the person who installed malaki was the former

president of the united states, president george w. bush. so i look first to the defeat of this resolution. but second, to consideration of a new aumf that focuses on whether we will do anything about assad or only go after isis whether we will use ground forces, which i oppose or just use our air forces. that debate needs to start in our committee. but this resolution is not an answer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: the president -- the troops don't have to be withdrawn for six months and the point of this resolution is to force this house to do its job and pass an aumf. if my colleagues are so upset that we haven't debated or voted on an aumf, because you have to

-- congress do its job. i yield to mr. o'rourke. mr. o'rourke: this is the best way to support our service meals and families, and this is to ensure that we have a strategy with defined, achievable goals when we are going to put their lives on the line. and today, i don't know that we have that. do we have a partner in iraq that has the will to fight. do we have the resources necessary across two different battlefields in iraq and syria to achieve the president's goal of degrading defeating and destroying isis? do we have a strategy that's worthy of the loss of even one

american service member's life? i think all of those questions are worthy of discussion and debate, a debate that would hopefully lead to an intelligent use of military force with that defined strategy. this is our way of supporting soldiers and their families and a way that the american people can hold us accountable by making the most important decision that a member of congress can, and that is to put a service member in harm's way. source the judgment and wisdom of the people we represent. if we have that debate and have that vote, will go back to our community and talk to the parents of future service members whose children's lives will be put on the line. i think that is the minimum responsibility we must meet. and i wish an aumf was brought to the floor. but today, this is the only way to get there. for that reason, i will support this. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from indiana, a member of the armed services and the veteran affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. walorski: i came from a meeting with the secretary of defense and chairman of joint chiefs both agreed that under no circumstance should this house consider this resolution at this time, which is conceivably an immediate withdrawal of our troops from iraq and syria. this causes and they discuss, and immediate risk to our allies and our homeland. we would not be debating this issue if the commander in chief had articulated to the american people. we would not be debating this. but even so mr. chairman, this is dangerous for america, and

this is not the way to go on a plan for immediate withdrawal with our allies and with our homeland being at risk. the world's watching today. the world has watched for the last several years of our lack of a foreign policy plan, but today the world is watching to see if this u.s. house is going to stand together in a bipartisan manner and we ject this resolution and stand together for the safety that we were sworn to stand together and uphold which is the safety of the united states of america. and i ask my colleagues to reject this resolution. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from indiana yields. the gentleman from california reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i again yield to mr. sherman of california one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: i don't want to characterize the resolution. i want to read it. it requires the president of the united states to remove all of our forces, except those needed

to protect our diplomatic facilities and no later than the period 30 days, 30 days deping on the date when this concurrent resolution is adopted. that applies to our naval and air forces. and then goes on to say if the president determines it is not safe to remove forces, he could have an additional period up to the end of this year. that assumes that our ground forces cannot be withdrawn within a 30-day period. our forces are mobile and capable and currently behind the front lines and can indeed leave within 30 days. clause 2 is politicable to a military that is engaged in combat or is immobile. our military is neither. clause one, 30 days beginning on the date when the concurrent resolution is adopted. i yield back. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back, the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i urge my colleagues to read the resolution, it gives the president through the end of the year if he so chooses, that's what it says. and i would hope that in six months we could come together and pass an aumf. i would hope that all my colleagues who are complaining theer -- that we don't have an aumf would come together and to something. because it hasn't happened in the first 0 months. we can point fingers all we want but it's not getting done. this is a way to force congress to do its job. it's that simple. this is not about walking away from the conflict in the middle east. this is about making sure that the men and women who serve in the united states congress live up to our constitutional responsibilities and do our job. i'm sorry that so many people think that's a radical idea but we haven't done our job and i think it's a disservice to the men and women who serve on our

armed forces and it's a disservice to our members of congress. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nolan: mr. speaker members of the house one of the great failures of this congress in our time has been the abdication of our responsibility which could not be more clearly defined by our founders for declarations of war. and subsequently resolutions authorizing the use of force. clearly, the time is long overdue for this congress to step up and assume its responsibility for these declarations these seemingly

endless wars of choice that are so costly in blood and in treasury. it's time that this congress step up and have that debate on whether or not it is in our interest to continue our involvement in these wars. we need to be presented with a rationale. we need to be presented with a strategy, or in fact it is time to put an end to them and to bring our troops home. mr. speaker, my fellow colleagues, we owe it to our taxpayers, who have spent trillions of dollars in these ventures, we owe it to our founders who knew and understand the importance of having the congress make these decisions, not executives and we owe it to our troops. it's time to have that resolution debated and decided here or to bring the troops home mr. speaker.

and as judge poe would say, and that's the way it is. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota yields. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from california, one of the co-authors of this resolution, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me first thank congressman mcgovern for yielding and for your tireless efforts and leadership. also i'm proud to join with congressman walter jones and mr. mcgovern on this bipartisan resolution. this resolution calls only for the withdrawal of u.s. armed forces from iraq and syria only

by the end of the year absent of passage of an authorization for the use of military force against isis. however this resolution is also about reclaiming a fundamental constitutional responsibility. the constitutionally protected right of congress to debate and determine whether and when this country enters into war. now for the last 10 months, our nation has been fighting yet another war in the middle east. a war that congress has yet authorized or even de-- yet to authorize or even debate. we have been patient. we have given the house leadership plenty of time to develop a strategy to bring up an authorization. when this war again, congressman mcgovern and i began -- wrote asking for a debate and vote. nothing happened. then they said the president had to send an authorization to the house. the president did just that and nothing happened. 10 months since the war began,

we've had no real debate and certainly no vote. this is outrageous. let me be clear what we're trying to do with this resolution, this is not about making a political point. this is about forcing congress to take up an authorization for the use of military force by the end of the year to follow through on its constitutional responsibility. it's about making us do our job. it's unfortunate that we have to do that. the timeline included in this bill gives the leadership of the house six months to bring forward an aumf but the clock is ticking. this last week the president announced he authorized the department of 450 more american troops to train and assist iraqi forces in the fight against isis. members this is textbook mission creep. mr. speaker, we're here to say, enough is enough. after more than a decade of wars in the middle east thousands of u.s. lives and billions of dollars lost, the need for congress to reclaim its war making powers is more critical than ever.

members of congress are sent to washington, d.c. to make hard decisions. but in the case of war, congress instead has chosen to duck its responsibilities and let me just say, the 2001 authorization for the use of military force which is a blank check for endless wars has been cited as the authorization for the ongoing war against isis. that's why of course i voted against it 14 years ago and have introduced legislation every congress to repeal this blank check for endless war. keeping this authorization on the book indefinitely without repealing or repolice station it has allowed congress to avoid its constitutional responsibility to bring up an authorization against isis. from what i remember, we only had one hour of debate in 2001. at least mr. mcgovern we have two hours to debate whether or not to debate an authorization to use force. congress must have a role in how we do our work. and what we're required to do. and that's exactly what this resolution is about. many of us agree that a robust

debate and a vote is necessary, long overdue and must take place. during the full committee markup last week of the appropriations bill the defense approach, i offered a sense of congress amendment that simply reaffirmed that congress has a constitutional debate, duty to debate and determine whether or not to authorize the use of military force against isis. this amendment was adopted with the support of six republicans on the committee. while we may all not agree on what an aumf should look like. we know there's bipartisan agreement around the need for congress to debate on a specific aumf. we need to do our job. we know full well there's no military solution in iraq or syria for that matter that any lasting solution must be settled in the region among warring factions. the american people deserve to know the cost and consequences of this new war and members of congress should represent their constituents by saying yes or

no. this resolution is a procedural mechanism, it's unfortunate, again, we have to do this to make us live up to our constitutional job and duty in the matters of war and peace. we need to vote yes on this resolution. it's simple, it's bipartisan, it just requires taos do our jobs, to exercise our constitutional responsibilities. enough is enough. we cannot allow the american people vf no voice in what is said and what is being done with their taxpayer dollars. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, chairman of the committee on -- mccall, chairman of the committee on homeland security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. mccal: the resolution before us today -- mr. mccaul: the resolution

before us today is dangerous and should be defeated. for months we have been at war against isis. today the secretary of defense testified that, quote, isis is a threat to the homeland because of its avowed intentions to strike and recruit in this country. isis will be dealt a lasting defeat, end of quote. but this president does not have a strategy to accomplish this. we continue to fight the terrorists with one hand tied behind our back. the only thing worse would be to disengage completely which is exactly what this resolution would do. i recently led a bipartisan delegation to the middle east where i visited iraq. ground zero in the fight against isis, a week before ramadi was overtaken by isis. i spoke with prime minister abadi. unfortunately, the current strategy in my opinion, relies too heavily on the shia militia

as a proxy of iranen to defeat isis. we now have over 3,000 american servicemens there to advise and assist the iraqi national military but the president has restricted our ability to take the fight to the enemy because he's more committed to his campaign pledge to end the wars mt. middle east than he is to ending isis. the president has in fact made the situation more dangerous. his failure to negotiate a status of forces agreement and the complete failure of prime minister malaki to govern effectively created the vacuum that isis now fills. in syria the civil war continues to rage. there, too isis has fill the void. islamic fa that the -- fanatics from over 100 countries have traveled overseas to fight with groups like isis. thousands of these jihaddists carry western passports and can exploit security gaps to return to the west and the homeland

where they plot attacks against the united states. meanwhile, iran is actively engaged in both iraq and syria, embedding shia fighters in sue communities in iraq and doing assad's bidding in syria. prime minister netanyahu told our delluation that iran and isis are competing for the crown of militant islam. this resolution would ensure that iran and isis will continue to dominate in the region while thousands of innocent civilians suffer and die. just as the christians in ifrack they support leaving security in the hands of isis and the iranians. thousand of them would have been killed last summer if it weren't for u.s. air strikes to repeal -- repel and isis advancement against them. nothing could be more irresponsible or damaging to our interests. let me say this to those who say this is a vote to urge an aumf vote. i personally support a strong aumf and authorization.

one to defeat and destroy isis. we met the white house council he, presented a very different aumf that would restrict further the president's current abilities to destroy and defeat isis. i cannot support that. and this resolution, with all due respect is the wrong way to accomplish the goal of defeating isis through a strong authorized use of military force. with that mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i yield two minutes to my new york friend and colleague, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this resolution and i commend the sponsors, mr. mcgovern and ms. lee, for introducing it. i do sot not -- i do so not because i necessarily think we should withdraw our troops in six months, maybe we should, i'm

not sure yet. but i do know we are waging a war that is probably unconstitutional. as we did in libya. since world war ii, we have time after time gotten away from the constitutional command that congress shall declare war. the found -- the framers said, no, war is too important to allow one person, the president, to decide on it. but we gotten away from that. we've gotten away from it because we didn't have time, that was the excuse, with the missiles flying over, you couldn't call congress into session. then came iraq. we had a resolution for the use of military force. then came libya. plenty of time to consult with nato plenty of time to consult with ashe countries no, time to consult with congress. i believe that was unconstitution -- and foolish as it turns out -- but unconstitutional use of force. now we have the middle east. in iraq and syria, we're get manager and more into the war.

i'm not commenting on the intelligence of that right now. it may be we have no choice but to fight isis. it may be, as the republicans seem to want without saying so, we should have a lot of boots on the ground, buzz that's what they mean when they say the president is doing it halfway. or maybe the bigger threat is iran and we should turn our attentions to iran instead of passively alying with iran against isis. or maybe we should say it's up to the middle eastern people they can handle it and pull our troops out altogether. that's debate we need what are the limits? congress ought to make these decisions in the name of the american people, not the president. because we haven't had an aumf on the floor, we must have this resolution. this resolution is not intended to pull out in six months -- can i have an additional minute? mr. engel: one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: this resolution is not intended to force a pullout in six months but debate. let us do our job and if the president submitted an aumf that is too strong or too weak, bring up a different one. it's our job to make those decisions and stand before our constituents and say this is important enough to go to war with isis or iran and send more troops there or not and here's why and here are the limitations. we shouldn't have boots on the grouped or should. that's our decision to make. we have had 10 years of war -- 13 years of war. we thought we were voting for three weeks of strikes against bases in afghanistan. the 2002 aumf was to topple saddam hussein. he's gone. the consequences are not over.

we ought to debate this. pass one or not. that's our decision, but pass this resolution to force that decision on us. i thank you and yield become. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis. mr. lewis: i rise in strong support of this resolution. let me thank the gentleman from massachusetts and the gentlewoman from karl, ms. lee and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for their tireless leadership on this issue. thank you mr. mcgovern. for 14 i don't know long years our nation has been at war. people are sick and tired of war. this resolution simply opens the

doors to bring american soldiers home. let me be clear. we must maintain a strong national defense. we have a responsibility to protect our borders, our diplomats and americans at home and abroad. but this is not through a barrel of a gun. no bombs cannot eradicate the seeds of hate. over and over again, i have stood on this very floor and reminded my colleagues that the use of force cannot, must not be taken lightly especially when the needs at home are so great and the sea of terrorism is so bad. president kennedy once said, those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make

a violent revolution inevitable. many of those share my concern that young people in the middle east would never forget the violence that they have experienced in their youth. i fear then and i will say again, they will grow up hating our children, our grandchildren and generations yet unborn. those young people who have little faith in democracy and value of inclusion for the hope of lasting peace. hate against hate violence begets violence, toughness against a greater toughness and we must meet the forces of hate with the power of love. these young people must be our focus. we must lift them and listen to

the voices for peace. we must demonstrate democracy is the most effective reference against terrorism. our people are sick and tired of war. i hope that all of my colleagues will support this resolution and vote yes the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i yield three minutes to the the gentlewoman from from the district of columbia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes.

ms. norton: i thank my good friend from new york for yielding to me. i have something special to say. as the united states has increasingly drifted into war without the usual congressional authorization, i appreciate that today's resolution permits the house to assert its appropriate role. i only ask that the residents of the district of columbia be permitted to be heard in the same way as other americans. although my colleagues will not only speak today, they will vote the will of their constituents today. although district residents are already serving in iraq, syria and elsewhere i am limited to

speaking without a vote. what an outrage, especially to our veterans. that outrage is amplified considering that district residents pay $12,000 annually per capita more in federal taxes than the residents of any state in the union, to support our government in war and in peace. regardless of what is decided on this resolution mr. speaker district residents will be there for america, as they have been for a war ever since the nation was created. it is time that congress was there for district residents. nearly 200,000 d.c. residents have fought for america's freedom in time of war yet residents including our d.c.

veterans are still denied a vote in the national legislature that sends them to war. in fact d.c. service members fought and won the vote for citizens in iraq and afghanistan, yet our veterans came home without the same voting rights for themselves. the nation willingly accepts their sacrifices and demands their tax dollar but denies them representation in this congress. d.c. residents have not only given their lives for the country since its creation as a nation, they have died in disproportionate numbers. and all of the 20th century wars. yet these veterans, among the 650,000 who live in the district of columbia still have no vote

on national security no vote on defense spending, no vote on the decision to send our country to war no vote on anything in this house. mr. speaker, i protest. i protest continuing to -- could i have 10 seconds? mr. engel: yield the gentlewoman for an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: i protest, mr. speaker. i protest continuing to demand full citizenship from the residents of your nation's capital while denying them the vote granted to all other americans that come with those costs. thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my friend for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. sanford: i thank the chair and i thank my colleague from massachusetts for offering this important proposal. i'm a republican who stands with this democrat because he is hitting the nail on the head. and i do so in this instance, it has been argued against as a blunt instrument. but what the founding fathers were very blunt about, if you will, was that only congress had the ability to declare war. and so this blunt instrument is ultimately about backing up the bluntness of the constitution and absolutely being declaretive in suggesting that only congress has the power to authorize war. and what the founding fathers knew was that at the end of the

day, body bags don't come back to washington, d.c. when something goes wrong in some far off battlefield. they come back to congressional districts. they wanted a check and balance where people from the local districts could report and say this is or isn't working for folks back home. again the funding fathers were so blunt. i look at a document that is 250 days beyond the war powers act. i look at the administration of the congress that is hinging its building and sustaining of war in the middle east, based on a 14-year-old document, in essence a blank check and there are no blank checks in this process. i look at what james madison said. he said the constitutions supposes that the history of all government demonstrates, and that is the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. it has accordingly with studied

care vested the question of war in the legislature. this proposal is about cost. it's about saying we have spent $2.5 trillion in the middle east. the harvard study says $6 trillion. we need to stop and pause not necessarily to bring back troops -- may i have 30 seconds? not necessarily to bring troops home but to force a debate in congress' role. this is something that we ought to care about. do we or don't we have proper lanes in the channel? this is something republicans absolutely ought to care about. and for that reason, i commend the gentleman from massachusetts for his work on this and ask that this bill, which is so important which is simply congress' authorization of war effort. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record some letters of support from the constitution project, which is signed by our former colleague signed by mickey edwards, a letter in support of this resolution is the council of the liveable world and a letter of support from the friends committee on national legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: we have one additional speaker who's not here yet. so let me reserve my time and see whether anybody else wants to say something. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 6.5 minutes. mr. mcgovern: i will then close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker i have great respect for the gentleman from california and the gentleman from new york. i know if it were left up to them they could fashion an aumf and get 218 votes. and quite frankly we wouldn't be here today if we had done our job, and the way you can bring up a privileged resolution is if our troops are in harm's way. this could end right now if the speaker of the house or the majority leader would give us a date certain by which we could debate and vote on an aumf. i'm deeply troubled by our policy in iraq and syria and isn't a defined mission and

might be more of the same. i'm not convinced that we will end the violence in the region, defeat the islamic state. but regardless of whether you support the war or oppose the war, believe we should escalate our involvement or place restrictions on it, the bottom line is that congress needs to debate an aumf and vote on it. that's our duty. that's our job. and if we don't have the guts to do so then we should at least have the decency to bring our families home. i hope each member of this house before they come down to this floor to vote on this resolution takes a minute to look in the mirror and ask yourself, why do we get to go home to our families when our troops don't have that privilege. they have been sent to iraq and syria and fight in our name, but we don't have the courage to stand up to them and to authorize the war and we don't have the guts to bring them home.

take a minute to ask we are willing to send our troops into danger and spends billions upon billions of board money for this war but not willing to carry out our constitutional duty the same constitution we keep asking our troops to put their lives on the line to protect. how can we keep asking them to sacrifice for us? i had colleagues come up and say, we share your frustration over the fact we have not debated and voted on an aumf, and i appreciate that, but i would ask them, what in the world can we do in a bipartisan way to force this question to come to the floor? what is it going to take to get the leadership of this house to say we are going to schedule an aumf, we're going to debate it and vote on it? we've been involved in this latest war for over 10 months. our resolution would give them

another six months to come up with an aumf, and if they didn't, then we bring our troops home. you know, the resolution before us, i admit, is a bit of a blunt instrument, but if congress had lived up to its responsibilities we wouldn't need to be so blunt. congress needs a clear deadline for a debate on an aumf for iraq and syria. that deadline is the withdrawal of our troops by the end of this year. it gives this house, it gives this republican leadership six entire months to get an aumf enacted. it gives this house and this leadership six more months in which to simply do their job. so a vote for this resolution is not a vote to pull out, as some have asserted. it's a vote to give house republican leadership a deadline that they cannot ignore, to force them to do their duty as leaders of this house by finally bringing an aumf to the floor for a vote.

i heard some of my colleagues complain that they don't like the president's policy in iraq and syria, and yet rather than trying to bring an aumf to the floor to define that policy better they're simply content to sit back and criticize from the sidelines. that's not what we're here to do. that's not what -- that's not our job. this is important stuff. war is a big deal. we ought to treat it like it's a big deal. war has become too easy for this congress and i see no other way to force this issue than by supporting this resolution before us. so i urge my colleagues to vote in support of house concurrent resolution 55, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: let me first of all

conclude the way i began. i want to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for raising this issue. it's an issue that has to be raised. i am in sympathy with many of the things that he said. so i don't really think we are really disagreeing here. we're just agreeing on tactics. as i've said, the intentions behind this resolution are commendable, but i cannot support this policy which when you all boil everything down would require a straight withdrawal without conditions. and that is not the right policy for this country, a straight withdrawal without conditions. i share my colleague's frustration that we haven't acted on a new aumf. we need to pass a aumf, but we need to pass a right aumf. if we pass this resolution, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be pushed to pass their own language overriding this measure. what will it look like?

i'd wage that it won't include the limitations that many of us on this side would like to see. worse still, we could just rubber stamp the argument that the 2001 aumf applies to isis in 2015. again, that's why i said we have to be careful we don't caught off our nose to spite our face. and the president sent us an aumf. i thought it was a good starting point. i know it was panned on both sides. republicans thought it was too light. democrats thought it was too harsh but it was a good starting point. there are many things in an aumf we need to consider. we need to consider time, geography. we need to consider what we do with the previous aumfs. these are issues that should be debated and i hope we will debate, but i think the white house put forth a good starting position. now, the american people expect us to do our job and pass a new aumf. they expect us to keep the united states out of another large-scale open-ended war and

pass a responsible policy for degrading and defeating isis. voting for withdrawal is not the right way forward. i believe that with all my heart. let's vote down this resolution, go back to the drawing board. chairman royce and i will work together in a bipartisan way as we have so many times in the past. let's put before this congress the right policy to get this job done. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields even when we agree with substance, i've worked with him on policies with respect to human rights in africa and frankly across the world on many many issues and i agree that an aumf would be

good but only the right aumf. but i would make this point. the white house hasn't helped the case to move an aumf. indeed, as soon as the president sent up his draft aumf text to the congress in february, the white house said he has all the legal authority he needs to conduct these operations regardless of what the congress does undercutting our effort to build a consensus. but we should not give up in terms of our effort to build this consensus, and to that end i intend to continue to work with mr. engel and others and craft a bipartisan and successful aumf that sends a message of unity, that sends a message of resolve. and to that end i would point out that the committee has held seven full committee hearings and nine subcommittee oversight

hearings on the isis threat. we've discussed the aumf. we've discussed the u.s. and coalition response, but given the wide range of views including the view that we have no military business in iraq reaching an agreement on a bipartisan aumf that authorizes the actions needed to defeat isis may not be possible. but it may be possible, and for that reason we are going to redouble our effort. there would, though, be a price paid for failure on this floor signaling disunity. and as we work towards the effort to build a consensus, we have passed legislation to directly arm the iraqi kurdish force who is are fighting isis on the ground. we have worked to strengthen to

help prevent americans who join the fight for isis from returning home to the homeland. we passed that legislation and to combat the cultural genocide being perpetrated by isis forces. and as i say, we will continue to work with our colleagues to try to find a way forward on a revised and updated authorization focused on the vicious and growing threat posed by isis. but acting without a credible way forward would be fool hearty not brave. a divisive and unsuccessful process would be perceived by our allies, our partners and our enemies as a no confidence vote in the fight against isis resulting in a significant blow to the national security of this country. and for that reason i would ask members to contemplate for a moment what the world would

look like should isis -- should our forces, our air strikes against isis be pulled out of that region. because i remember what it looked like when they didn't have air strikes before they went into mosul and members of our committee in a bipartisan sense called for airpower to be used against isis on that desert path as they were headed to mosul. and here is what we saw when they took that city. mass killings, beheadings, abductions, forced conversions, torture, rape, sexual assault, using women and children as human shields, people being burned alive and buried alive, women and girls the age of 13 being taken as captive to be sold as sex slaves to put into force marriages with isis

fighters. that is what we witnessed after the fall of that great city. and the question -- the question i would ask is that if we are to abandon our air strikes in support of these kurdish units on that 600-mile front 50,000 of those troops are women fighting against isis and they no longer have u.s. air support to support them in their effort to turn back isis, what will become of them? what will become of others? because this is simply no longer a terrorist organization. it is now a full-blown army seeking to establish a self-governing state through the tyingress and euphrates valley in what is -- tigres and euphrates valley in what is now lebanon and seek to expand that further. we know a lot now about its leader, abu bagdadi in syria.

ess a designated global terrorist under u.s. law. his mission, he clearly states, if you want to go online and see the blueprint of isis and part of that is to gain resources in recruits and create a safe haven to attack the united states. so yes, this certainly goes to the direct security interest of the united states if we were to pull off and give a breather to him and to isis. in iraq, we are taking less than half measures to assist the i.s.f., the forces fighting isis, with insufficient trainers and advisors, as i said, with no forward air controllers with insufficient plans to train the sunni tribes and insufficient arms to the kurds and sunnis something we are trying to do with our legislation. the balance of power in the middle east is shifting against the u.s. regional interest and

certainly against u.s. security. as stated, there are no simple answers or solutions. we discussed this in this debate, but without our involvement, without our involvement our adversaries will continue to be embolden, our friends out of fear are susceptible to poor decisions while the middle east region and the world becomes a more dangerous place. so this organization isis, is simultaneously a strategic threat to the region and to the world and a genocidal terror movement. and i recall us saying on the floor of this house, never again with respect to genocidal terror, and we are watching genocidal terror. so i would just close with this argument, mr. speaker and that is let's work together to get an authorization for use of military force, which the

president already claims he has under the prior authorization we gave to attack -- for him to attack al qaeda and any al qaeda affiliate but let us not pull out our airpower that is being used right now to slow the advance of isis as it tries to take over that region and as it attacks civilians throughout the middle east. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the order of the house of wednesday, june 16 2015, the previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution. the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the nays have it. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution will be followed by five-minute votes on ordering the previous question on house resolution 319 and adopting house resolution 319 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 are 139, the nays are 288. with one answering present. the concurrent resolution is not agreed to. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 319 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution.

the clerk: house calendar number 42, house resolution 319, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 160, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to repeal the excise tax on medical devices and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1190 to repeal the provisions of the patient protection and affordable care act providing for the independent payment advisory board. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous questioned. members will record their votes by electronic device. -- question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute involvement -- 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 241, the nays are 186. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this 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 241. the nays are 186.

the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor.

could we clear the center aisle, please? take the conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, seek recognition? mr. ryan: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 319, i call of the big h.r. 160 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 105 h.r. 160, a bill to

amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 319, 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 114-157 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the author of this legislation, mr. paulsen, be permitted to control the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker and members defibrillators, operating room monitors, insulin pumps, pace makers, artificial hips, x-ray machines, ventilators and ultrasound machines -- these are life-improving and life-saving technologies that have reduced costs for the improved health of millions of americans. unfortunately the president's health care law implemented a new tax on all of these innovative devices, a tax on medical devices. only in washington, mr. speaker, would you impose a tax on life-saving medical technology and think you will actually reduce health care costs. this is bad tax policy and it needs to be repealed. the medical device industry is truly an american success story. employing more than 400,000 people. in my state of michigan 35,000 people are employed in this industry. 400 companies alone in the state of minnesota. 80,000 of device manufacturers are small businesses with less

than 50 employees. 98% of all these companies have less than 500 employees. it can take these small startups 10 to 15 years to even achieve profitability or earn one penny of profit because they rely on investment and the promise of a future of earnings to survive. the device industry is a net exporter. we have a trade surplus with our exports, and most importantly, these companies are producing life-saving and life-improving devices for millions of our patients across the world. medical advancements have helped add five years to u.s. life expectancy in the last two decades. it's helped slash the death rate from heart disease by 50% and cut stroke by 30%. and there is a 16% decrease in mortality rates and an astounding 25% decline in elderly disability rates in the last 20 years of innovation. it's leading -- medical innovation is leading and will

continue to lead the way, we improve lives for our seniors who have chronic disease. despite all the benefits that this industry provides, a 2014 harvard business review article recently found that device industry now faces one of the most uncertain competitive environments in the entire country. instead of hurting this industry, we should be empowering this industry, creating more jobs, producing more innovation and helping more patients. and we often hear that america needs to start making things good to help jump-start the economy. and one of the best ways to protect american manufacturing and spur innovation is to repeal this harmful medical device tax. because here's what the tax is doing -- it's costing us jobs. one company i spoke to said they never laid off any employees in the last 22 years of their history of business but they laid off 25 employees and they refrain from hiring another 15 employees because of the tax, but if you take it to a bigger, larger picture, up to 39000 jobs have been lost

because of the tax since it's been imposed. these are high-paying jobs, mr. speaker that pay nearly $20,000 more than the national average. and the 2.3% excise tax, it may not sound like much, but you know, here's the problem. it's taxing revenue. it's not taxing profit. a small device manufacturer, they may not be making any money but they still have to pay that tax. one company i spoke to, they have 20 employees they recently said they're borrowing $100,000 a month from the bank just to pay the tax. that doesn't make any sense. mr. speaker, it's also raising tax rates. medical device companies now have to pay one of the highest effective tax rates of any industry in the world. recent testimony in the joint economic committee, there was a small company from minnesota that now says because of the tax they have a 79% effective tax rate. 79%. . who here can justify that? it's harmeling innovation. instead of investing in the next generation of innovative

devices a that can help save people's lives, companies are spending money on compliance and accountants instead of research and development which is the lifeblood of this industry. and members should note that this is separate from the debate about how we reform health care. this is about a bipartisan effort today on the floor to promote american innovation, to protect and promote american manufacturing and research and development jobs. because democrats and republicans conservatives and liberals, in both bodies in the house and senate, favor repealing this tax. it's bad tax policy. it's killing jobs. it's hurting our seniors. and it's harmeling unovation. mr. speaker -- harmeling innovation -- harming innovation. mr. speaker, it's time to repeal this destructive tax. with that i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such

time as i shall consume. there are certain basic facts here. one is, this industry participated in the creation of health care reform. they like other providers, were involved. and like other providers they said that they would participate in helping to pay for it. that's a fact. now they want out. another fact is that they have benefited from it. according to recent analysis the industry's revenue increased by $8 billion in the year the tax took effect. also there's been a reference to r&d. r&d, according to that report spending by the industry also increased by 6% in the same year. there's also been reference to employment.

the analysis also says that in that year employment increased and the overall employment has 23,500. 23,500 increase in employment. so those are the facts. there's another aspect. if people vote for this industry to essentially go back on its commitment to participate, other providers are going to ask for the same treatment. and so in that respect, what the republicans are aiming to do is to unravel to unravel a.c.a. another fact is, this is unpaid for. so when you add this unpaid for

provision, you get altogether well over $600 billion that the republican it's -- it's $610 to be specific -- have passed permanent tax cuts without paying for one dime. another factor is that this applies to imports as well as to those that are produced in this country. and not at all to exports. so, if you look at the equities, if you look at how this industry has benefited, if you look at the irrationality and irresponsibility in coming forth to this body and saying, let's repeal and not pay for at all from a party that talks about fiscal responsibility. so let me just read from the

statement of administrative policy. that's another fact. if this were ever to pass the house and the senate it would be vetoed. so here's the statement of administration policy. the affordable care act -- and i quote, the affordable care act has improved the american health care system on which americans can rely throughout life. after more than five years under this law 16.4 million americans have gained health coverage. up to 129 million people who could have otherwise been denied or faced discrimination now have access to coverage. and health care prices have risen at the slowest rate in nearly 50 years. as we work to make this system even better, we are open to ideas that improve the accessibility, affordability

and quality of health care and help middle class americans. and it concludes, i quote, in sum, h.r. 160 would increase the deficit to finance a permanent and costly tax break for industry without improving the health system or helping middle class americans. if the president were presented with h.r. 160, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. this is the end of quote. so i close with this. you know, people can be provincial in the sense that they respond to one pressure point or another. and i understand that. but what you have to do is look at an entire system and an

entire structure and what it means for americans throughout this country. this industry, as i said, participated in helping to pay for health care reform. they have benefited from it. and now essentially they're coming forth and saying just take us out of it. separate us out. that's unfair unwise, irresponsible and sets a pattern that will do what republicans really want to do and that is to pick apart andtary apart this reform -- and tear apart this reform that has been 75 years in coming. so i urge everybody to look at the broader interest of the people of this country and to vote no.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 160 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i yield myself an additional 15 seconds. mr. speaker, just in response to the report that was just mentioned, it's true that companies have been hiring growing in certain cases, but all of that growth is outside of the united states. if you want to continue to promote more jobs outside of the united states, don't vote for the repeal and we'll continue to see jobs move overseas. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, a member of the ways and means committee, mr. meehan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. meehan: thank you mr. speaker. let me begin just disspelling the premise that somehow this whole thing is devised so that we can allow the medical device companies to flourish. the thing we want to flourish is research and development. that is producing the kinds of

things that are helping the american people. and that's the essence of what the medical device r&d innovation is doing. this is stifling, at the precise moment where breakthrough opportunities, oftentimes in small businesses, i see them, mr. speaker, i visit them in my district and at the time that is the most fragile for them, they are being hit with this 2.4% tax which touches them at the time when it's not on profits. these are the very dollars that are being used to be invested into r&d, whether they sell that product or not. we are killing our innovation right in the cradle. i strongly encourage my colleagues to support the repeal of the medical device tax and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time -- the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from washington, the ranking member on the health subcommittee, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized -- is

recognized for four minutes. mr. mcdermott: i ask to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker mr. levin was correct. when we were designing the affordable care act, everyone was expected to share in the cost as we work for the american people. the medical device industry said how about 2.3%? we'll go for that. they agreed to it. here they are asking for us to give them nothing, no taxes. they don't have to pay anything, no matter how they benefit from it. now repealing this tax, which the nonpartisan analysts have shown has no negative effect on jobs, will add 24.-- $24.4 billion to the deficit. it would eliminate an important source of revenue simply to appease an industry that has benefited directly and greatly from the expansion of the coverage of a.c.a. on top of that, the bill is a

distraction from a more important issue that the congress needs to address in the context of medical devices. they would not let us vote on an amendment in the committee to bring up the institution of unique device identifiers. an essential tool of improving patient safety is the u.d.i. a u.d.i. is a number associated with a medical device. right on the device. they contain important information about where, when and by whom the device was made. they provide for postmarket surveillance to identify problems and notify patients when objects that they put in their bodies are faulty ordaining rowls. this has dramatic impacts -- or dangerous. this has dramatic impacts on safety. in 2010 a massive recall of breast implants in france impacted tens of thousands of women. many cancer patients under go

reconstructive surgery and their lives are threatened when faulty implants leak dange rouse chemicals -- leak dangerous chemicals into their bodies. it's essential that we know who was given the faulty device so that recall efforts can save as many lives as possible. unfortunately even when the f.d.a. finishes its new u.d.i. regulations in the coming years, we will lack important tools, including devices in the agency's postmarket safety checking system, initiative. the primary source of information for the sentinel is insurance claims forms. yet unlike pharmaceuticals, c.m.s. does not currently require u.d.i.'s to be listed on medicare claims. that makes it all but impossible to apply the sentinel initiative to the device contact. furthermore the additional gaps exist in the f.d.a.'s

rulemaking on u.d.i.'s. for example there is no requirement that u.d.i.'s be a fix -- be affixed directly to the implantable devices. as we look forward, and i encourage my colleagues to look beyond efforts to undermine the a.c.a., and to look for opportunities to enhance safety and improve the system for patients, not just the device industry, i urge members to vote no on this and come back with a bill -- if you want to take the tax off, that's one thing. but at least make them identify the name and the place and their number of where it came from so if somebody you know gets impacted by one of these devices going bad, we'll have a way to trace it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana a leader on the ways and means committee, also concerned about the impact of this tax on his home state of indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two

minutes. mr. young: mr. speaker, obamacare's medical device tax has already been devastating to innovation, patient care and job creation. especially in my home state of indiana. up north we have war saw which is known around -- warsaw which is known around the world as the orthopedics capital of the world. in central indiana we have a burgeoning life sciences industry centered around the indianapolis area. further south we have bloomington, which is home to cook medical, the largest privately held medical device manufacturer in the world. and medical device startups dot indiana's landscape from lake michigan down to the ohio river. indiana's world class medical device companies like biomet, boston scientific hillrom, zimmer, and dozens more don't just create and produce life-saving technology. they also employ tens of thousands of hoosiers. and these jobs pay well. at a time when factories have closed and jobs in rustbelt states have been sent overseas

medical device manufacturing jobs have been a life line for hardworking hoosiers and their families. every day this tax remains in effect, we continue to slow advancements in life-saving and life-improving technologies. and we hinder patient care. this day's long overdue. it's time to support h.r. 160 and finally repeal this harmful ill-advised tax. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from michigan. . mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield four minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, a member of the committee mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, i'm sorry. the gentleman from indiana is leaving the floor right now, because one of the companies he mentioned -- one of the companies. there are others -- was brought before the justice department because of their behavior not

long ago. so my friend from indiana talks about zimmer holdings. that's one of the reasons why i'm asking you to review your support of this legislation. because let me tell you whaled to zimmer and -- what happened to zimmer and stryker when the u.s. attorney looked at these two companies and many others. here's what they were brought to heel about -- bribing doctors to recommend their prosthetic to senior citizens under medicare. what place in hell will they be? these guys should be in the deepest place in hell. the deepest. you check the record. you can't make this stuff up. i oppose this legislation.

when the affordable care act was being negotiated, these companies were at the table. they agreed to this. you can't deny that. and because of the a.c.a., the health care market includes millions of newly insured americans, more business for these businesses, by the way, driving up the demand for medical devices and other health care services, increased demand capitalism. you know about that. however, the device industry wants it both ways. they want new businesses and they want new business under the a.c.a. that the a.c.a. has created, and since the law has passed, they've been lobbying for repeal for what they agreed to. i swear you can't make it up. i support the a.c.a. and its goals. you don't. and it needs to be funded, and it is the law of the land as

the speaker once said. you can't support the goals of the a.c.a. and then start stripping out the pieces of law that fund the realization of the goals. oh, but you can and you've tried 56 different times to repeal this legislation and you failed every time. even now you're in the majority. this legislation would add $24.4 billion to the deficit through the speaker to my good friend from pennsylvania. and it is not paid for. despite industry claims of job loss and economic hardship, medical device companies have seen a 7% growth in employment since the a.c.a. so furthermore i remain concerned about some of the behavior we have seen in this industry. another minute? the speaker pro tempore: the chair would like the gentleman

to address his remarks to the chair. mr. pascrell: sure, mr. speaker. i became highly involved in the medical device issues in 2007 when a number of device manufacturers entered into controversial deferred prosecution agreements for providing doctors with kickbacks for using their knee and hip replacement devices. as a result of the justice side i've worked to put an end to deferred prosecution agreements that don't hold the bad actors accountable, and there are many good companies provided medical devices, but the facts are the facts and history is the history and the culture of this industry needs to be known. and i've also worked to improve the safety of medical devices for patients by using clinical data registries.

repealing the medical device tax is not good legislation, mr. speaker. and it's not good for the budget. billions added to the deficit. and i think if you'd ask our ranking member, mr. levin he'd give you a precise number as to how much you've increased the deficit and what your legislation provided over the last six months. i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. and i'd just want to address something that was stated by one of the previous speakers from washington state who made to the comment that the medical device industry supported that tax. as i recall, senator baucus helped impose a tax on the industry because he felt they were not providing enough at

the table in terms of concessions for the a.c.a. in fact, since they weren't doing enough at the table the medical device table were put on the menu and they fought this tax rigorously. there's no letter to support -- to indicate they had any support for this tax. i rise in strong support of this legislation to repeal the device tax. however you feel about the 2010 health care law in the whole, we can agree the legislation has its flaws. one of the most glaring deficiencies is the medical device tax designed to extract doctor 26 billion in the next 10 years. it's stifling critical innovation and threatening high-quality jobs in my district. it's increasing costs to consumers for those who rely on them such as prosthetics, pace makers and artificial hearts. costs are being passed onto consumers at all levels through increased insurance premiums and bills from providers. the industry supports over

75,000 jobs in the commonwealth of pennsylvania and several companies are located in my district including orshore, b. brawn. in fact, b. brawn c.f.o. testified that the company has been forced to drastically reduce investments in research and development and also job losses as a result of the medical device tax. in fact, they're not building a new headquarters because of this tax. these are good paying 21st century jobs and the congress should not support policies that will kill them or send them overseas. mr. speaker the medical device tax is a punitive tax and it's creating disincentives, create life-saving new technologies. it's past time that congress repeal this onerous -- this onerous new tax and i urge my colleagues to support to protect medical innovation act. let's get rid of this once and for all. let's excise the excise tax. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. the gentleman from michigan

reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita, since he was first elected in 2010, he's been a leader on this organizing freshmen members recognizing the importance of repealing this disastrous tax. mr. rokita. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. rokita: i thank the speaker and i thank the gentleman from minnesota for yielding the time. he's been the leader on this from day one. i'm happy to join him. i also thank chairman ryan of the ways and means committee for allowing this to come to the floor the way it has. i think it's very important. most of america thinks this is very important and have it stand alone here where it can be debated hopefully honestly i think speaks well. to the process, i think it speaks well to the leadership of chairman ryan and member paulsen and others who are behind this. i'm privileged to be back on

the floor to support this. it's long overdue. it needs to happen. there's an old adage, mr. speaker. that is, if you want less of something, tax it. and the same is true here. if you want less jobs in this area, like the 56,000 jobs in indiana alone, tax the devices that those jobs produce. if you want less innovation, tax these medical devices. if you want america to be less of a leader in the world when it comes to this industry, tax it. that's all their argument mr. speaker, is saying and our bill corrects that. let the free market work. let innovation work. let's keep us a leader in the world on this area and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pli reserves.

the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. brooks who has been a leader as part of the member on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs brooks: i'd like to thank the gentleman from minnesota for leading this effort since i came to congress in 2013. i join today joining my fellow hoosiers seeking greater opportunity for all americans. i'd call for an end to the tax. i hear from countless hoosiers about the restrictions the medical device tax is placing on our life sciences industry, not only in it indiana but across the country. this tax takes away the opportunities to innovate to hire more people and more importantly to improve patient access to critical technology. in indiana the life sciences industry is vitally important. it has a $59 billion impact on our economy and employs more than 56,000 people. in fact, we're second -- indiana's second only to california in exports of life

sciences products. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that the unfair medical device tax jeopardizes our competitive edge. it stunts our work force opportunities but most importantly it is decreasing access to life-saving technology for people. mr. speaker, i want to stand for jobs, stand for improving people's health and stand for more opportunity and i'd like to urge my colleagues to repeal the medical device tax and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from new york ms. step nick who has done -- who has recognized the importance of this issue to the state of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. stefanik: i rise in support of h.r. 160, the protect medical innovation act introduced by mr. paulsen. in march i was proud to lead a bipartisan letter of freshmen lawmakers to speaker boehner to

repeal the medical device tax. according to a 2014 industry survey, the tax resulted in employment reductions of 14000 industry workers in 2013 and years prior to implementation of the tax. with approximately an additional 4,500 jobs lost in 2014. furthermore, if we don't repeal this tax, the industry will forgo hiring of nearly 20,500 employees over the next five years. this important bipartisan legislation will repeal the affordable care act medical device tax that is limiting access to health care devices that north country families need and undermining the medical device industry that is so important to our local economy. repealing the medical device tax will help our small businesses, create jobs for north country families and protect employees who are currently at risk from this job-killing tax. this is an extremely important issue for my district, especially in warren county home of what is called kaat

they are valley, because of the numerous cather companies. i urge all members to support this measure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: i'd yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana someone i traveled with the state of indiana mr. stutzman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 160 the protect medical innovation act. i appreciate the work that congressman paulsen has done on this very important issue that has affected my district dramatically. as a sitting u.s. congressman of warsaw, indiana, known as the orthopedic capital of the world, the burdensome medical device tax hits very close to home for my constituents. in fact mr. speaker, the hoosier state as a whole is second in the nation in exports of life science products and across the state over 20,000 hoosiers are directly employed

by this industry. the impact on our communities and our neighbors is one of the reasons i have fought so long and hard alongside mr. paulsen and my colleagues to repeal this very destructive tax. mr. speaker, back home in indiana hoosiers know that taxation does not create jobs. it kills them. in fact, a recent study has shown that the medical device tax implemented to fund obamacare has cost more than 33,000 jobs nationally so far. mr. speaker repealing this medical device tax is a simple, commonsense reform, and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. thank you and i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. costello, who recognizes the importance of this issue. the speaker pro tempore: mr. costello is recognized for one minute.

mr. costello: thank you, mr. speaker. the cost of health care continues to increase in this country, and as a philosophical matter, i do not believe inserting more government between a patient and their doctor will reduce costs. in fact to the contrary. but there are things government can do. that's why we in the house of representatives are putting more money into n.i.h. funding. it's why 21st century cures has been introduced to streamline approval processes at the f.d.a. and make sure that various stakeholders involved in finding cures are all working together. . what remains as a contradiction is a policy that taxes those who seek to innovate through pioneering medical device equipment. we are taxing those who are trying to help improve and who have improved public health outcomes. it just doesn't make sense. simply put it is a disin