good, but moving out into the future, we have challenges. we have an aging population, which is going to require more investment in things like medicare and social security. i am not for butchering those entitlements, but the question is still -- we have to balance a lot of these priorities and that is really the question of the day. by the way, our tax host: we have to end there. the house is coming in. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] r, we give you thanks for giving us another day. bless the members of the people's house as they gather at the end of another week in the capital. endow each with the graces needed to attend to the issues of the day with wisdom, that the results of their efforts might benefit the citizens of our nation and the world. we also ask your blessing leading into this weekend upon

fathers throughout our country. may they be their bestselves and may their children appreciate fully the blessing their fathers have been to them. may all that is done 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. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1 i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you mr. speaker. i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman

from new jersey mr. lance. mr. lance: 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 five requests for one-minute speesms on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute mr. speaker. the speaker: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we talk a lot in this chamber about the negative impacts of overly burdensome rules and regulations handed down by bureaucrats in washington. nowhere are the potential negative consequences more evidence than the 700-page rule proposed by the department of labor. among other things, it expand the department's complex pension rules to cover i.r.a.'s as well as changes the definition of who is classified as a financial advisor. ultimately, i believe this rule will restrict access to advice

and drive up cost for small businesses. it also illustrates a fundamental difference between republicans and democrats. democrats want everyone to end up in the same place with identical outcomes and republicans believe in providing individuals with the same level of opportunity. this rule seeks guaranteed outcomes for everyone, but there are inherent risks associated with investing. while i'm open to modernizing current rules to protect consumers against predatory practices that impose unnecessary risks, i will not support efforts that make it harder for american families to save and plan for retirement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. kilmer: tom brokaw said it's easy to make a buck. it's hardtory make a difference. today i rise for someone who made a difference as a school

teacher. he began his career a half century ago at roosevelt high school where he taught seventh grade home and coached football. i met so many people i had him as a teacher. i think he taught my entire hometown. but the common themes from his former students that i met have been these. he was a great teacher. he cared about me as a student. he doesn't just teach me english and geography. he taught me to be a better student and a better person. earlier this week he finished out his career at the crystal stood in washington and yesterday he had his first well-deserved day of retirement. mr. speaker, the teacher that i rise to honor today is j.c. kilmer and he's my dad. mark twain remarked the two most important days in a person's life is the day he's person and the day he figures out why. my father was born to teach and like so many fantastic educators he's affected so many lives in so many ways. so today i hope you join me in thanking a teacher and i want to congratulate him on being a

great educator, a difference maker and for being a dad. thanks, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. lance: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask unanimous consent? mr. lance: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lance: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today in strons support of repealing the medical device tax, a burdensome tax on medical devices that increases costs, stiffles investment, slows the race for cures and ultimately makes health care more expensive for patients. the tax is resulted in less spending on research and development, escalating costs on the newest technologies, a reduction in capital investments and ultimately a factor in the loss of jobs in our nation's vital life science sector, which is critical to keeping the united states a leader in the world and crucial to my home state of new jersey. one of the major newspapers in our area editorialized recently

in support of our efforts "the easton express times" pointed out that the excise tax is having a depressing effect on a sector of the economy that until recently was doing well. some are looking to relocate overseas. i thank my close friend, congressman erik paulsen of minnesota, and the ways and means committee for sponsoring this legislation and i urge the house to pass repeal of the medical device tax and work with our senate colleagues to send this measure to the president. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lee: thank you mr. speaker. night before last with the whole world watching, my home team the golden state warriors, brought the owe bryant trophy back to oakland -- obryant trophy back to oakland. led by steph curry led persistence and teamwork both

on and off the court. the finals against the well-matched and talented cleveland cavaliers were a thrill to watch. these games were basketball at its best with both teams showing real passion on the court. that's been 40 years since oakland last brought home the championship, and throughout this long journey warrior fans have stayed loyal and faithful. thank you to the warriors team for making our dreams of another championship a reality. i have no doubt that this remarkable team will go down in oakland's history. thank you to the head coach, steve kerr, steph curry klay thompson finals m.v.p., andre iguodala, and all of the talented players who brought this championship home. i can't wait to celebrate this win with all the warriors' fans and players at the victory parade tomorrow morning in oakland. go warriors, go oakland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise in honor and memory of my former south carolina general assembly colleague, state senator pinkney. tragedy happened last night. we are all made in an image of got. we are all brothers and sisters in -- image of god. we are all brothers and sisters in christ. plays pray for the church who suffered the lost, the city of charleston tormented with stress, the state of south carolina and its law enforcement personnel. we all need to come together with compassion and love. remember from the book of matthew, blessed are the poor and spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comfort. blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. bless for those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for

they shall be satisfied. bless for the merciful for they shall seek mercy. blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called sons of god and blessed those who are prers cuted for righteousness sake for those are the kingdom of heaven. may god comfort the city of charleston and state of south carolina this morning. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to highlight the familiar predicament congress has found itself in because of the republican leadership continues to govern by crisis. as of now we have four legislative days until the export-import bank expires. mr. aguilar: this helps american businesses of all sizes and markets around the world. china's businesses have the support of their country's import export bank and we need to give our businesses the same certainty. for years the ex-im bank has

helped level the playing field for businesses in my district and across this nation empowering and supporting them to grow and conduct business overseas. i've had the opportunity to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support businesses and create jobs in my home district in san bernardino county. there's no reason we can't continue working together to re-authorize the ex-im bank so american workers and businesses have the opportunity to play a role in the global economy. we cannot force american businesses and workers to pay the price for congress' inaction. the ex-im bank doesn't cost taxpayers a cent and has created or maintained 1 1/2 million private sectors jobs since 2007. we need to stop the political games and re-authorize the ex-im bank. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. walberg: thank you, mr.

speaker. in the 21st century workplace where women account for nearly half of the work force, it is vital that our policies reflect today's new realities. specifically the 1978 pregnancy discrimination act p.d.a. is in need of modernization. recently the act was litigated before the supreme court but even the justices were unable to fully resolve how to apply the p.d.a. that's why senator mir could you say key and i introduced the pregnancy discrimination amendment act, h.r. 2800. it says working moms to be should have access to reasonable accommodation fathers their employers if health issues arise from pregnancy. unlike other proposals that would create more mandates confusion and litigation, my bill simply clarifies insisting law to ensure the 21st century workplace works for families employers and expectant mothers. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend

my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today as we approach the deadline of negotiations with iran to stress that any agreement must unequivocally guarantee that iran cannot obtain nuclear weapons, while a diplomatic solutions is the ideal method of stopping iran's illicit nuclear programs, we owe it to the american people of this country to end up with not just a good deal but a great deal. mr. murphy: that means giving inspectors robust access to nuclear facilities to promptly verify compliance, a great deal means iran acknowledges the full extent of its nuclear weapons program. a great deal would remove tools that could leave iran with a pathway towards nuclear weapons and provides a long-term solution. finally a great deal phases in sanctions relief so we aren't rewarding iran for deception

and noncompliance. a nuclear iran is one of the greatest threats to the united states, our greatest ally israel and to regional stability in the middle east. i cannot stress enough how important it is that iran must not under any circumstance be able to obtain a nuclear weapon. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute -- mr. roe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my pleasure to once again to rise commemorating june 20, 2015, as american eagle day, and celebrate the recovery and restoration of the bald eagle, the national symbol of the united states. on june 20, 1782 the eagle was designated as a national emblem of the united states by the founding fathers at the second continental congress. the bald eagle is a central image of the great seal of the

united states and is displayed in the official seal of many branches and departments of the federal government. the bald eagle is an be inspiring symbol of the spirit of freedom and democracy of the united states sincing the founding of the nation, image of the eagle have played a significant role in art, music, history, commerce, literature architecture and the culture of the u.s. the bald eagle's habitat only exists in north america. i hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating join 20, 2015, as american eagle day, which marks the recovery and restoration of the bald eagle. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? ms. gabbard: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. today i'm introducing a resolution to commemorate the first ever international yoga day. this day is occurring on sunday, june 21, and it was a day that was designated by the

united nations with over 177 countries in support. over 24 million americans and 250 million people around the world practice some form of yoga and on sunday people all around the world will be celebrating the benefits of living a yoga lifestyle. india's prime minister addressed the u.n. general assembly on september 27, 2014, stating yoga is an invaluable gift of india's ancient tradition. it embodies unity of mind and body, thought and action, restraint and fulfillment harmony between man and nature, a holistic approach to health and well-being. it's not about exercise but rather it's about discovering the sense of oneness within yourself, the world and nature. as a longtime yoga practitioner myself i experienced firsthand the positive impacts of yoga on

my own life and i'm honored to be introducing this resolution today and share with others the true meaning of yoga. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: good morning. by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 321, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 43 house resolution 321 resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 2146, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement officers firefighters, and air traffic controllers to make penalty-free withdrawal from governmental

plans after age 50, and for other purposes. with the senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the house without indvention of any point of order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on ways and means or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on ways and means. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? ms. slaughter: good morning mr. speaker. pursuant to section 426 of the congressional budget and empowerment control act of 1974 i make a point of order against consideration of the rule house resolution 321. section 426 of the budget act

specifically states that the rules committee may not waive a point of order described by section 425 of that same act. house resolution 321 states that it, quote shall be in order to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order a motion that the house concur in the senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying the resolution. end quote. therefore i make a point of order pursuant to section 426 that this resolution may not be considered. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the gentlewoman from new york and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.

following debate the chair shall put the question of consideration as the statutory means of disposing of the point of order. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, mr. speaker. before i begin i would like to take a moment, if i may, to mourn the horrific loss of life in charleston, south carolina. places of worship used to be places of sanctuary, but there are no more sanctuaries in the united states from gun violence. whether it's an elementary school college, hospital, anything in the world, gun violence is there among us. we want to all give our condolences to our colleague, jim clyburn, who represented that area in charleston. i had a personal interest in it as a very good friend of mine who had been pastor of the a.m.e. church in rochester for decades left us to go to pastor that church and is still an elder there. our hearts go out to all the men

and women and hope we'll see brighter days. to the matter before congress today. mr. speaker our chamber and our nation are off balance. something is drastically wrong when members of the people's house have to vote on greasing the skids for a trade deal they are discouraged from reading, even if they do read, cannot discuss with their constituents the people who sent them here. that's what we are being asked to do today regarding a massive trade deal to abdicate our authority by approving fast track. and to give the simple vote yea or neigh only -- nay only on an issue that's not simple at all. in fact it could not be more complex or more far-reaching. unlike the senate action on this measure, members of the house were totally unable to have any amendment and very much discussion of what is going on here. mr. speaker, fast track is an anachronism that needs to die. there is no longer any need for

it at all. it came as a matter of convenience in the 1970's when the united states was the biggest manufacturer on the face of the earth and we were pretty sure we always would be. so it was decided by the powers that were in place then that the congress would just hand it over to the administration to go ahead and negotiate all trade agreements despite the fact that the constitution of the united states gives us that power. we are allowed -- we allowed the administration to do it. one committee, ways and means, got to see it. there was no amendment and the only vote we can take on a trade bill is yea or nay. mr. speaker it's not just us that are forbidden basically to see what's in this bill and to talk about it, it's the country of australia and new zealand. let me read from a report on that. they are very much concerned there. the fact that this t.p.p. and

what they have found leaked out what phrma is doing here to extend all their patents for 12 years so that they cannot only raise those prices here in this country, but for all those countries involved in the trade agreement. and when the university of law at auckland described what's happened here the pharmaceutical part, because the u.s. pharmaceutical industry used a trade agreement to target new zealand's pharmaceutical management agent which is their health system. this transparency access will erode the process and decisions of the agency that decide which medicines and medical devices to subsidize public money and by how much. the test shows that t.p.p. will severely erode the accessibility to continue to deliver affordable medicines and medical devices as it has for two decades.

the -- in australiaa, they are under the same restriction we are, only theirs is worse. a member of that parliament who goes to read the trade agreement has to sign a paper that they will not discuss it for four years. i make this point because two of the great democracies on this planet, the united states of america and australia have given over the right of the people's elected representatives to know what's in these trade deals that would have such devastating effects on all the people that they represent. how in the world can this continue and let it go on? if we don't do anything else in this congress, and we may not, i would really like to see us do away with the whole idea of fast track. we can't afford any longer. at least i'm sure when it began there was no problem with certain corporations deciding they were going to make major

decisions as we have had by leaks here. i have not gone to read the bill. i do not want to be hamstrung by anything that i can discuss -- concerns that i have with the people whom i serve. this is one of many reasons i think why this trade bill is bad. let me say i have a few more here that i'd like to go over. if you'd give me -- what we have in the customs bill. i need to make sure that everybody understands this. when you vote for t.p.a. today, you're voting for things that were in that customs bill -- again, hardly any of us knew anything about it. let me tell you what they are. preventing action on climate change. this is going to be written in this bill. we cannot, nobody anywhere on this -- can even bring up

climate change. it's a great step backward and they managed to get this in before the pope's encyclical too. second and most grievous to many of us who worked so hard on human trafficking, including members on both sides of this house that i have worked with, it weakens the language on human trafficking and they had to do that because the nation with the worst standards on human rights and human traffic is malaysia. one of the countries with whom we want to be allied. third they ignore currency manipulation. which we have been told for decades is one of the most serious acts against the united states from countries who trade with us changing their currency, and as one of my colleagues has pointed out, mrs. dingell, that one motor company one automobile company made more money from their trade

manipulation than they did by selling their cars. we don't want to expand that. we don't want that to go on. there is also a strong anti-immigration provision that we are being asked to vote on today. that we -- giving up our right as elected representatives of the people of the united states. it says that trade agreements do nothing to address immigration. they may not. and democratic priorities such as ensuring that dodd-frank would not be affected by the trade agreement because we heard the financial services is very heavily involved here were rejected in the senate and not included in this bill. we are very much concerned about that. we are very much concerned about where we are going. but fast track will be an absolute rubber stamp to disaster. as i mentioned before, it is negotiated in a cloud of secrecy by multinational conglomerates and pharmaceutical companies that have one priority and that is the bottom line. what we know, again is all we

have heard from leaks. what has made its way to the light of day is appalling and gives anyone who wants to vote pause to think about what that vote means before we give it because we don't know what's in that bill. one of the things that some of us are very much concerned about is food safety and prescription drugs and the erosion of environmental protections the degradation of the financial sector. this deal is headed down the wrong path. not only would the t.p.p. certainly shift good-paying american jobs overseas, it would endanger the food on our table by weakening the safety standards. 90% of the seafood consumed in america is imported, but only 1% to 2% is inspected. much of it from countries with little controls on sanitation and water quality the american consumers expect. one of the biggest threats comes from shrimp imported from vietnam, a t.p.p. partner. the dangerous bacteria in the shimp is ubiquitous and includes

shrimp contaminated with mrsa. it includes due deference preference from rules negotiated by drug companies extending their patents in an unfair way for 12 years. they are rigging the system in a way that would make it harder for people in t.p.p. countries to have access to lifesaving drugs. we got a history to warn us about this. this thing has been modeled after nafta which cost ulls over five million jobs. my part of the country is just now recovering from that a little bit. we don't want to see this happen again. all over this country there are factories that are closed. cities that have gone. places where literally there is no work. even t.a.a., which is very important to us, would be trading people for jobs in most case that is don't even exist. but this is hidden away from the american people and hidden away from the congress, the people that represent them. but it's causing a stir all the

way around the world. as i pointed out other countries are looking at this with great -- let's follow what our minority leader said last week. let's put this thing to rest and negotiate openly a trade agreement that we can be proud of. we all believe in trade. everybody talks about free-throw -- free trade. i want to change that to fair trade that will be enforcible and benefit everybody involved. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. session: i rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i too, rise with a sad heart this morning on the occurrences of the things that happened in south carolina last night. i know i join the gentlewoman as well as all the members of this body to express our condolences and our sorrow with the things that have happened.

i know that later in the day we will take time to offer those formally by the members of the south carolina delegation. mr. speaker, the question before us is, should the house now consider h.res. 321. that's what we are here for. while the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the motion to concur with the amendment, the committee is not aware of any violations of the unfunded mandates. . this sl simply a tactic that -- this is simply a tactic that the gentlewoman wants to talk further about the issue at hand. i get that. we spent weeks talking about this. the united states senate spent weeks talking about this issue. the gentlewoman wanted to use her time to talk about all the things that she believes are wrong with the bill and that's ok. that really doesn't bother me. but the bottom line is to the

entire matter is that we're using our responsibility under the constitution for the congress of the united states to establish the laws and to direct the president of the united states that we believe is very constitutional to say to the president of the united states we want are you to go engage the world in a trade deal, and we are going to tell you the parameters, some 160 different parameters about how we believe you should engage the foreign countries in these trade deals. the gentlewoman is right there are some difficult piece parts in there as the gentlewoman mentions about immigration. yes, i made sure that was in there because i don't believe this should be about immigration or visas. i believe this should be about trade. and yes there is language that is in there about climate

change because i don't believe this should be about the united states in a political circumstance trying to push our ideas on a trade deal about global warming or these considerations that might be related to that issue. mr. speaker, she's right. there are piece parts of this agreement, the trade promotion authority, that not everybody likes, but let's not act like you didn't have an opportunity to read the bill or understand the bill. but much like any contract -- and that's what we're engaging here in. we're engaging in saying to the president we want you to go sign a contract, an agreement with these foreign countries that are in the far east who have not only large populations but growing economic circumstances to buy our

products and us to make sure that we lower tariffs or taxes on those products to where they're available to us. yes, we understand currency manipulation is a problem and primarily that's a problem with perhaps two countries. neither of those countries do we have a free trade agreement with and one of them we want to have a free trade agreement with. another country simply i don't believe understands rule of law or intellectual property and i think they are thugs and don't care. they're a country that steals openly hundreds of billions of dollars from the united states, and they do not respect any rule of law or international agreements. so we probably won't sign an agreement with them. but this is a good deal. it is a good deal and where america has trade agreements

the last 10, 20 countries that we have a trade agreement we have a $10 billion surplus with those countries because these countries want american products, because the american worker does a great job and we have the best engineering and manufacturing and pricing but the product is worthy in the world market and will sell. the state of texas, which i am from, sells $289 billion of texas-made products overseas every year. that is an example of how important trade is, and this trade deal, contract, that we're wanting to empower the president -- whoever that may be -- for the next seven years is let's go cut a deal that's good to that country and to america.

and in the process mr. speaker, we added some language for those of our friends that are watching, along with you, mr. speaker, as i address my comments to you, section 8, subsection a on page 101. page 101 it says, united states law to prevail in the event of conflict. mr. speaker, it lays it out right here. no provision of any trade agreement entered into under section 3-b nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance that is inconsistent with any law of the united states, any state in the united states or any loy calt in the united states shall have -- locality in the united states shall have effect. mr. speaker, what i'm trying to suggest to you is there are a lot of things about this bill. some that some people like, some things that other people

didn't like but we had a chance to read it, we had a chance to understand it. this is a contract that we have not even agreed to yet. why would someone go and publicly talk about a deal that they haven't made? so mr. speaker, i believe that what is happening right now is that we should say that this point of order should not prevail. i think that what we should do is move to the discussion that we're going to have, to allow the house to continue its business and i urge members to vote yes on the question of consideration of the resolution. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> parliamentary inquiry. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas will state his inquiry. mr. doggett: my inquiry, mr. speaker, in the underlying bill is there anything to prevent taxpayers from having to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of

enforcing the very laws that the gentleman from texas says this agreement would preserve, any local ordinance, any state agreement that like happened in canada recently that the taxpayers get -- end up having to pay the bill for simply enforcing existing law? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry. mr. doggett: it is a fact, though. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on the question of consideration of the resolution. i reserve my time. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york will state her parliamentary inquiry. ms. slaughter: i need to require from you if my colleague was reading from the trade bill what he had read and is forbidden to speak about. it's classified. did he reveal classified information? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady has not stated a

parliamentary inquiry. now, if the gentlelady has a parliamentary inquiry, please state it. ms. slaughter: my concern is that he is reading from classified documents -- i just need to know if that's the case. of course i will. mr. sessions: section 8 of the t.p.a. i did not say t.p.p. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i believe we've pretty well beaten this dead donkey to its point. it's logical conclusion as we move forward. i urge a yes vote on the question of consideration of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. mr. sessions: i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the how now consider the resolution. those in favor say aye. -- is will the house now consider the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative.

the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, is recognized for one hour. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i'm delighted to see you this morning, mr. speaker, once again. i believe that our comments this morning should be tempered with a reminder about the events of south carolina and how much this body and its members offer their prayers and consideration, not only of our colleagues but all the people of south carolina, the men and women, law enforcement and people of faith all across this country. and i want to once again express my consideration of those ideas. mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter, my friend, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. before i go through my opening statement, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from irvine, california, the gentlewoman,

mimi walters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. walters: i'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker we've spent considerable time of debating the mirts of t.p.a. in this body. i want to bring us back to the fundamentals of this debate. i want to talk about why trade is so important to our economy, why trade is a conservative cause and why trade is so vital to our nation. simply put, free trade empowers the individual to make decisions for his or her -- in his or her best interest without undue government influence. look around at -- undo government influence. look around at your house or your car. without question there are imported products. free trade allows you to make the best economic choice for your family. when economic enterprises free from unnecessary government interference and all enterprise is treated equally, the most competitive actors will rise to the top.

that means higher quality products and lower prices, which translates to improved standards of living and economic growth. opponents of free trade will say we need protectionist measures to maintain certain industries, but that is a flawed argument. protectionist measures may benefit a few in select industry but ultimately protectionism is more harmful to the nation's economic health. protected industries become inefficient. consumers are denied choice and american businesses face retaliatory trade measures overseas. bottom line, protectionism is an abandonment of the free market in favor of government intervention. i believe that when american businesses and entrepreneurs are placed on an equal playing field, when we eliminate tariffs and protectionist barriers at home and abroad, american businesses can compete

and when against any of their foreign competitors. the famed economist milton friedman said free trade ultimately forces competitors to put up or shut up. mr. speaker, let us set the table for free trade. let us pass t.p.a. i know american businesses will put up. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered without objection. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut ms. delauro, who's been so effective on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in strong opposition to this fast track bill which is only made worse by a gimmick of it being attached to unrelated legislation designed to help

federal public safety professionals. and i might add, as already been mix menksed, that the general president of the international association of firefighters which addresses -- which this rule addresses as well, said, we urge you to oppose this rule. for 20 years our nation's trade policy has been failing american workers and the businesses that want to invest in this country. it has driven away jobs, pushed down wages and exacerbated inequality. a vote for fast track is a vote to continue that bad trade policy for another generation, because if we approve fast track today, we rubber stamp the trans-pacific partnership agreement. the trans-pacific partnership asks american workers to compete with labor in developing countries like vietnam where the minimum wage

is 56 cents an hour. it does nothing to combat the biggest source of lost jobs currency manipulation which the economist fred birkson said cost us in the united states up to five million jobs. people lost their jobs and lost their livelihoods. it allows thousands of foreign corporations to challenge the laws on food safety, drug safety, environmental protection health care, labor rights the minimum wage and indeed any domestic law on any subject. and the gentleman on the other side of the aisle said that that is not the case. just witness what happened last week when this body and the majority in this body voted to repeal country of origin labeling so that we know where our meat, our poultry and our pork come from because the world trade organization and canada and mexico ruled against us. so we are going to give up our domestic law. this is a trade agreement

that's been crafted by lobbyists, for the special industries that stand to gain the most by weakening u.s. regulations and shipping jobs overseas. yet, the administration has shown absolutely no interest in improving this deal or even listening to our concerns. that means that when the trans-pacific partnership comes to this house, we need the ability to amend it. at the very least, it must include sanctions against currency manipulation and forcible labor and environmental standards and a transparent process. if we vote for fast track today, we throw away our ability to make any of those amendments and we turn our backs on our commitment to american workers, to their jobs, to their families to their economic security. we must make this a vote and this vote must be a turning point so that at long last the

american public can say that those of us in this house opposing fast track demands policies that tries to -- ms. slaughter: i yield another -- ms. delauro: 10 seconds. ms. slaughter: 30. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. delauro: the vote last friday and today's vote are critical in letting the american public know where we stand and that in fact we prioritize their economic security, their jobs, their increased wages that we are opposed to special interests and that's what this trans-pacific partnership is all about. . we must, we must reject this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. gentlelady from new york reserves her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much. there's a lot of confusion down here. everybody thinks we are now talking about obamacare and we are not.

when the gentlewoman talked about diminishing wages, diminishing job opportunities for the future -- ms. slaughter: will the gentleman yield? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i've got the time. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman from texas controls the time. and the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker thank you very much. there's no bill that i have ever seen that diminished wages or people's opportunity to work the hours that they'd like to work. and obamacare. but we are not debating that today. mr. speaker we are here, i want to be clear, about trade promotion authority. t.p.a. not t.p.p. not any of the other bills. we are here for exactly the same bill the house passed last week. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from the rules

committee, from washington, the gentleman, congressman new house. -- newhouse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from weak is recognized for two minutes. mr. newhouse: i rise to support the rule and underlying bill of the trade promotion authority. look at my state of washington. we have jobs, economic growth, increased exports because of trade. those benefits and the example of that can be applied to our entire nation. by passing t.p.a., congress will set priorities to ensure that any agreement levels the playing field with our trading partners. and creates jobs here at home. without it, the administration will be setting those priorities and we, congress, will have no say and little oversight. in my state we export many agricultural products, aircraft footwear software. we export fully 30% of our apples. 0% of our hops. over 85% of our wheat. t.p.a. is about instructing our

trade negotiators to reduce the trade barriers that american farmers and manufacturers face. so that we can create and sell openly around the world. right now our american wines face very stiff tariffs in japan. chile and argentinean wines face none. our beef face 38%, oranges 16%. t.p.a. will instruct our trade negotiators to work on lowering these tariffs. the reason to vote on t.p.a., is it will make the deal public and gives the american people several months to review any negotiated deal. without passing this, there is no review period. the deal can stay secret. some objective that our voices have not been heard on this matter, but for months the house ways and means committee, and the rules committee, have considered dozens of amendments to three different trade related bills. there has been ample time for debate.

mr. speaker, this rule and the underlying bill are critical to our economy. without it our country will continue to face enormous barriers, but with it we can grow our businesses, create more jobs and ensure the american economy remains the most competitive and strongest in the world for decades to come. 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 reserves his time. and the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: the administration seems to think that democrats and the coalition that is opposing the trade t.p.p. would reject any trade deal. we are called protectionist, unreasonable, but that is not true. rather than these fancy parliamentaryry -- parliamentary manipulation we should take the time now to fix it. some of the odious position that is we know that are in the

t.p.p. which this fast tack will cede us to, our u.s. negotiating position, our trading partners are not clamoring for the extra judicial investor dispute resolution authority. allowing huge corporations to challenge their, and hard fought consumer protections. workers and environmental laws etc. these are our negotiating positions. we could drop them and that would be welcomed abroad among our trading partners. countries want the opportunity to -- and the rights to protect their food supplies. that includes us. decrease smoking, promote buy america, increase the minimum wage, control the cost of drugs protect our environment. we could reset the balance of the intellectual property rights and access to lifesaving affordable medicines by rewriting the pharmaceutical chapter, which i did look at. more than a trade bill, this

establishes a new regulatory regime that favors the wealthiest and most powerful corporations. we could change that. this vote -- these votes we are taking today are not the end of the track. it is the beginning the track to a new negotiation. it is the beginning of an opportunity for us to sit down and make sure that we get the best for workers consumers and our trading partners. and that we benefit our economy not just for the very few at the top that can go to some extra judicial court and challenge our regulation, but for everyone. this is a bill that we can make better. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentlelady from new york reserves her time. and the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much. the gentlewoman knows that in the t.p.a. agreement there is an agreement that she can go and attend every sickle round --

single round of discussions and negotiations by law. she could be right there. she could be -- watch it as it happens. we can be engaged in this as members of congress. the entire way. that's what this agreement's about. this is discussions and negotiations about t.p.a. not t.p.p. you know the fear factor, mr. speaker, is incredible. let's go and let's do the right thing for the american worker and our future. that's what we are doing now. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ways and means committee, from raleigh, north carolina, congressman holding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. holding: i thank the gentleman from texas, my good friend, the chairman of the rules committee, for granting me the time. here we go again, mr. speaker. debating what should be the united states' future role in the global economy. we have heard a lot over the past few months about the economic benefits associated with free and fair trade. but trade is just as important to our nation's foreign policy

as it is to our bottom line. there is no question that trade is an important strategic soft power tool. mr. speaker, i don't think for one second china isn't watching this very debate right now. waiting to see how serious we the congress, is about america's economic future and commitment to retaining our position of global leadership. in fact, mr. speaker, i venture to guess they have been focused on what a deal like the t.p.p. would mean for their sitting and future ambitions in the asia pacific region for a long time now. the united states can either be in a position where we can write the rules for the future trade agreements and develop closer bilateral tie was our negotiating partners, or we can sit on the sidelines. passing t.p.a. is about expanding our influence in a critical region of the world with the t.p.p. and solidifying our alliance was our partners in europe with the tpip.

failing to pass t.p.a. i fear would confirm many of of our allies' own fear that is america is in retreat from the global stage. but we can send a strong signal today, mr. speaker, that while our nation's foreign policy has recently been adrift, the house of representatives in the united states supports closer economic ties with our partners and wants to see an america that is engaged on the world stage. mr. speaker, i urge support of this rule and support for the t.p.a. legislation later today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back his time. the gentleman from texas reserves his time. and the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you mr. speaker. i oppose this rule. i'll tell you what, it is such a danger, mr. speaker, that the

majority is trying to move through the backdoor what it could not get through the front door on the floor of this house last week. and they are doing it in the most shameful way, mr. speaker. hiding behind our first responders. that's right. hiding behind firefighters and emergency personnel. and even those firefighters, international association of firefighters, representing more than 300,000 firefighters and emergency room personnel, oppose what's being done here today on this floor. and i urge my colleagues to do the same. there is one thing i agree with the gentleman from texas about this is a donkey that died last week. when we stood up for american workers, small businesses, and american jobs, and right now that donkey is like roadkill and we are going to kill it right here on the floor of this house of representatives. we know that this body could pass legislation that in fact is not just about free trade but about fair trade, and they are not doing it today. protecting our workers, protecting our climate

protecting our buy america provisions for our procurement. so, mr. speaker even as we are just getting word of the pope's encyclical on climate change, and overwhelmingly recognizing the human cost and cost to us all, we have a letter from our u.s. trade representative saying that this deal doesn't do anything to deal with the authority of the administration to negotiatein fact, is shameful. what we are doing here today is against american workers against american business, against american jobs. it is time to kill this donkey once and for all by putting it to rest and coming back to the table to reset for the american workers. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maryland yields back her time. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: at this time, i'd like to yield three minutes to one of the most exciting new members of congress from the ways and means committee, the gentleman from butler pennsylvania where i have visited and watched this young man as he not only ably represents a proud group of

people but is a strong american. the gentleman mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, in this house we have a duty to legislate based on truth not fiction. we cannot afford to be uneducated, uninformed, or untruthful when it comes to t.p.a. maybe the problem is we labeled it wrong. maybe we should have called it congressional trade authority oversight. maybe that's what we should have called it. there is a great misunderstanding, and i hope it's a misunderstanding, about what this does for us. there is no way america can compete in the global economy without strong trade agreements. when congress sets the parameters, carefully constructs what the agreement has to contain, there is no mystery, there is no bogeyman, there is nobody hiding under the bed, there is nobody hiding in the closet. you don't have to have a secret decoder ring or magic knock at the door to read the items. it's there for to you look at

for crying out loud. will you stop pushing a false narrative. it's about growing our economy. the only way to grow our economy is protecting what we have and going into the global economy and increasing our market presentation. if you want america to grow, you must allow america to grow and lead. when america leads, america wins. when america wins, the rest of the world wins. it's just that simple. why in the world fast track? it is not fast track. you want to call it slow track that's fine. you have 60 days to read it. that's slow around here. you want to call it smart track that's what it is. it's safe track and sure track. what it is it puts america back on the track to economic prosperity. pass t.p.a. today and put america back on the track. protect american jobs. allow the economy to grow and allow our workers not just to produce and contribute products here at home but around the world. that is how we win and that is how the people who depend on us win. when america is strong, america leads. when we are not strong we create

a vacuum at the top of the world that will be filled with bad actors. please stop using the narrative if you're not informed, get informed. if you're not educated, get educated. for god's sake don't be untruthful. i urge passage of the t.p.a. and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. members are reminded to address their comments to the chair and not to each other. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york. . ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: i'd like to thank the member for the time. members, what i dislike about this whole debate is that there's so much invective thrown around. here's the truth. the reality is if we pass trade promotion authority, we will have nothing more than an up or down vote at the end of the process. they don't have to take our amendments. they don't have to listen to

what we say and very likely what will happen is that whatever has been negotiated already will be what the deal is. so for some members to try to claim that others don't get it or they're not being honest is quite frankly insulting and does not add one thing to the quality of the debate. the american people deserve to know that if the trade promotion authority passes, there is a yes or no vote that will happen at the end of the process, and nobody here will be able to impact it through the normal course of events. we can go to some meetings. we can voice -- write some letters but can we actually legislate? no. now, the reason this is a very bad outcome is because the united states constitution delegates congress, this body, with the power to regulate

commerce with foreign nations. it says, congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. what we are doing here is taking that constitutional authority and we are handing it to the executive and hoping for the best. now, the people who have been negotiating the trans-pacific partnership all along are a body of about 600 multinational lawyers and business people. the voice of the workers hasn't been there. the voice of the environment hasn't been there. the voice of ordinary citizens who care -- who have every reason to want a better world and impact this process have been muted in favor of big multinational corporate types. so we must vote no on t.p.a. today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from the ways and means committee, an awesome

free trader charles boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. boustany: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the chairman of the rules committee for giving me time. let's set the facts straight here. liberal union leaders, radical environmentalists, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle have been relentless in pushing misinformation to confuse and distract the american people and it undermines the confidence the american people have in this body, the people's house. let's look at the facts. t.p.a. trade promotion authority it's not a trade agreement. it's the process by which we get the best possible trade agreement. the best possible agreement on behalf of the american worker and the american farmer. this is congress asserting its constitutional authority by setting the priorities for the -- our negotiators. we're robustly involved in the negotiation process and this

t.p.a. version is even better than previous ones because it empowers all members of congress, not just the ways and means committee or the senate finance committee. the bill t.p.a., has been push. it's been public for -- the bill, t.p.a. has been public. it's been public for months. just go to congress.gov. it's not secret. they are trying to deliberately confuse t.p.a., trade promotion authority, with the trans-pacific partnership, which is a trade negotiation under way and not completed yet. we want a strong t.p.p., trans-pacific partnership agreement for american workers and for farmers. we won't get that without t.p.a. it's been public for months. just go to congress.gov. it's not secret. they are trying to deliberately confuse t.p.a., trade promotion authority, with the trans-pacific partnership, which is a trade negotiation under way and not completed yet.

we want a strong t.p.p., trans-pacific partnership agreement for american workers and for farmers. we won't get that without t.p.a. t.p.a. puts a strong check on the president, placing the congress in the driver seat with 150 negotiating objectives that must be addressed or else the final agreement won't be brought up for a vote, will kill it. we have the power, not the president. it contains strong protections putting immigration authority in violation of american law. it prevents the president from -- all these urban myths that are out there. frankly, the misinformation is disturbing, it undermines the trust of this body. we have to put the facts on the table for the american people. this has been supported by a wide number of groups. business groups, conservatives. many other groups. if you support transparency, if you support placing a check on the president, if you support robust oversight and if you support getting the best deal for the american worker knocking down barriers whether there are tariff or nontariff barriers in these other countries to give the american worker a break, open markets, then you support t.p.a. t.p.a. is the catalyst for economic growth. it opens the door for a robust trade agenda for the united states. we created the global trading system after 1945. are we going to walk away from it? we only have 20 agreements -- 20 agreements with 20 countries

that is, free trade agreements. these are important agreements. other countries have 40 50, hundreds of them. why are we sitting on the sidelines? we've been sitting on the sidelines for decades. it's time for american leadership. we can't walk away from the trading system we created. and our partners around the world want us engaged. this is the catalyst for american leadership. this is important -- this is an important part of our national strategy, an important part of our foreign policy. you want strategy, you want economic growth, you want fairness for the american worker, support t.p.a. for a catalyst for american growth and leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pocan: i thank you mr. speaker, and thank you the gentlelady, for the time. i won't go into the exact same debate we had one week ago because the facts are still the same. if we pass fast track authority

the facts are identical around the fact we will lose jobs here in this country and we'll depress our wages here in this country. we will lose our sovereignty and control over our laws and we will have problems with everything from food safety to intellectual property rights and so many other laws. but what's different about this week from last week is this is not the same trade promotion authority. this trade promotion authority will take away american jobs but it lacks the trade authority that gives us the assistance, the dollars to help those people find other jobs. this includes all the amendments that affect us from taking away the provisions the senate put in around currency manipulation, take away the amendments around human trafficking and specifically say that we cannot address climate change in these trade negotiations. now, that alone is an issue that i want clarity from the white house on. i have been in and looked at the language and i will not talk about classified language

on the floor, but the amendment specifically we need clarity about where we are on climate change in this agreement. this is not the same t.p.a. it will cost jobs. it will lower our wages. it will not provide any protections for those workers who lose their jobs because of this and now because of last week's actions, the bill before us is a far, far worse bill. mr. speaker, i strongly urge my colleagues, let's let the american people have a say, the only way they will is if congress retains our authority to amend and debate this bill. if if we give that away it's our -- if we give that away it's our own fault. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. once again i have to remind my colleagues, we have to follow some understanding about what we're trying to do here. this is t.p.a. t.a.a. was up last week and my colleagues that are democrats turned down the same things

they are now talking about provisions to protect the american worker. the democratic party voted against the american worker last week. they're the ones that turned down exactly what the gentleman is talking about needs to be part of this deal. the democrat party turned their back on the american worker. that was last week. this week now they're trying to talk about things that are in t.p.p., mr. speaker. we're not here today for t.p.p. we're here today for trade promotion authority. that's it. t.p.a. and the gentleman, mr. kelly, was very right to say let's talk about the real facts of the case and the truth. it's about t.p.a. it's exactly the same bill that was here last week. there were other considerations last week. the democrat party turned their back last week on the worker. we're not trying to do that

today. trade promotion authority. mr. speaker at this time i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman, the chairman of the small business committee, the gentleman from cincinnati, ohio chairman chabot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. chabot: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i'd urge my colleagues to support the rule and i think every member of this body on both sides of the aisle have something in common. we all have small businesses in our districts and probably a lot of them. and one of the privileges we have as members of congress is to talk to those people and find out what's important to them and what's important to them is important to the country because about 70% of the new jobs that are created in the american economy nowadays are created by small businesses. and in thinking about what i would say about t.p.a. here this morning i thought rather than just tell people what i thought about it, i thought i'd bring some examples of some of those folks that we have talked to. and as chair of the small business committee i get to talk to small businesses all

across the country and here's some examples of what they're telling us. here's michael stanic of hunt imaging in ohio. he said free trade agreements are extremely important as they lower foreign barriers to our exports and produce a more level playing field. without t.p.a., the u.s. is relegated to the sidelines. as other nations negotiate trade agreements without us, putting american workers and companies especially small ones at a competitive disadvantage. here's one of power cerbers. t.p.a. is critical to restore u.s. leadership on trade. manufacturers in the u.s. face steeper trade barriers abroad than virtually any other country, including mexico and china and european countries largely because those countries have entered into more market access agreements than the

united states. trade and foreign markets are critical for small businesses like power curbers. here is kevin of severns farm. without t.p.a., critical negotiations without some of our key export markets may stall. my understanding is that on average u.s. citrus exports to the countries included in the trans-pacific partnership can currently face tariffs as high as 40%. tare ifts 40% -- tariffs 40% given that 30% of california's citrus crop is exported around the world. access to these markets is vital to us. and here's brian of ebay which helps many small businesses sell their products abroad. he said, throughout our experience we have found that technology is transforming trade by allowing main street businesses to directly take part in globalization, reaping the benefits of markets previously only opened to the

largest global companies. this is good economics because it means more growth and wealth and it's good for society because it means a more inclusive form of globalization. that's what people from around this country small business men small business women are saying about t.p.a. and t.p.p. and trade. in effect they're saying, if we want to grow the american economy and create jobs -- which i think we all want to do -- we must be proactive on trade and that means passing t.p.a. and then t.p.p. better trade agreements mean small businesses will be able to access new international customers and offer their products more easily and at a lower cost than ever before. it means that more products will be built and sold. when that happens, jobs are created wages go up and more opportunity is available to all. you put an american worker against anyone in the world and i'll take that every day of the week and twice on sunday.

but we can't get there without t.p.a. without t.p.a. other nations, especially china, will dictate the rules of the new economy. nations that do not respect the rule of law or the rights of individuals, in many cases, especially in the case of china. 96% of the people that are on this globe that we all share live outside the borders of the united states. so many of the world's consumers are not here so we want to sell our products overseas and t.p.a. gets us on the right track. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the ranking member ms. slaughter, for yielding and wish to say if

the underlying trans-pacific partnership were such a good deal then why is the rules committee limiting our ability to read it and vet it fully and amend it? by voting for the trade promotion authority, what we basically do is handcuff members of congress so we should vote no. why should we believe anything the executive branch sends up here? we have a right to read it fully and vet it fully. let's look at the history of these trade agreements. over the last 25 years, every time we signed a trade agreement so-called free trade agreements that benefits the 1%, not the 99%, america has lost more jobs. post-nafta, look what happened? we used to have trade balances with these countries. we've all gone into trade deficit which means they send us more goods than we're able to get into their markets. . we got into the china permanent normal trade relations deal, then the colombia deal, korea,

there hasn't been a balanced trade account in this country for 30 years. 30 years. 40 million lost jobs. $.5 trillion. a trade deficit. trading away 1/5 of our economic might to other places. and what did the american people get? lost jobs. outsourced jobs. stagnant wages. average income in regions like mine $7,000 less a year. than 25 years ago. not a good deal. you can't create jobs in america and have free trade when you have closed markets abroad. japan is closed. korea's closed. china's closed. europe, 10% imports. we don't. we have an open market. you can't create jobs and have free trade when you try to trade with countries where their people have no rights, no legal rights. this congress should devote --

should vote no on this transpacific partnership, the underlying bill, and the trade promotion authority because we have a right to read the agreement and openly debate it. right now we have to go down to a secret room. we have people that monitor us. we can't even talk to the american people about what's in it. what's free about that? the executive branch has totally overreached its power. only four titles of the dozen in this t.p.p. are actually about tariffs. this bill is a treaty. it should be considered as a treaty. openly read by the senate. and it should be able to be amended and fully vetted. this is so important. when you have gone through a quarter century of job loss and income loss by the american people, why can't we produce a little that benefits the 100%? not just the 1%. the ones that were able to play the plane ticket to go to asia to represent very important transnational interest.

but they are not just the interest of those companies. we have to represent the interest of the american people. let's balance these trade accounts and develop a new trade model not a nafta-based trade model. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. kaptur: good wages and balanced trade accounts for the first time in a quarter century. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. session: i'm soarry, we forgot to make sure everybody knew we are only doing t.p.a. today. we are not doing t.p.p. we are not doing these other agreements. i'm sorry. i forgot to say that for the 57th time. where we cut deals we win. the 20 trade agreements america has, we have a $10 billion sur plus last year alone. i don't know where all these people are getting off in scaring and making fear statements about the american worker. i don't get it where they talk

about us not passing t.a.a. when they are the ones, the democrat party, that turned it down. i don't understand why they are beating us up for putting provisions about immigration. i guess they want to flood our work force with foreign workers. i don't get where the democrat party and its great stalwarts are coming from today. this is about t.p.a. and that's what we are going to vote on. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding. let's be clear the members on this side of the aisle, the democratic party members on this side of the aisle completely understand what we are debating today. we know we are debating the rule on t.p.a. the same t.p.a. which has been

modified. the problem we have, as the gentleman has said we are not debating t.p.p. the problem we have is the trade promotion authority is intended to be the method by which this body this congress creates the parameters for negotiation of trade agreements. such as the transpacific partnership. unfortunately what we have, and the reason that this has been difficult is that we are trying -- this house republican leadership, particularly trying to create a t.p.a. that accommodates the already negotiated t.p.p. so while it's a good rhetorical argument to say we are not debating t.p.p., the fact of the matter is the reason that there's been such a lack of willingness to consider any modification, any amendment to the t.p.a. bill, is because any change would not align with the already negotiated transpacific

partnership. the reason, for example, that a bipartisan amendment that i and mr. clawson offered with equal numbers of democrats and republicans, 22 of us to deal with currency man national park plays, was not made in order because it would not align with the already negotiated transpacific partnership. most everybody agrees it would be goodpolicy. this deal is already written and now we are trying to back a t.p.a. bill in that will accommodate t.p.p. it's rather difficult for me to accept the argument that this t.p.a. question has nothing to do with the transpacific partnership when everybody in this house of representatives knows that it has everything -- will i not yield. i have limited time. the other thing that's important for to us keep in mind is that this is the worst piece of legislation than the bad one that came before the house last week. because of the modifications to

t.p.a. that came through in the customs bill, as my colleagues have said despite the fact that many on the other side have argued our attempts to deal with climate change here in the u.s. alone will not be affected because it's not a global approach, when we have an opportunity to take a broader approach representing 40% of the global economy and deal with climate change, we now have an absolute prohibition, a gag order, we can't talk about climate in the greatest opportunity we would have to deal with climate change. nor can we even have a weak provision regarding currency which has been excised from the t.p.a. and unbelievably we will actually weaken our ability to deal with bad actors when it comes to human trafficking. this is shameful. it ought to be rejected. and i urge my colleagues --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. the gentleman from ohio. miss -- ms. kaptur: parliamentary inquiry. i would like to know that if members vote in favor of the trade promotion authority currently before us, will members be allowed to amend the underlying bill, the t.p.p.? could the chairman of the rules committee address that, please? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is stating a matter for debate. not a parliamentary inquiry. ms. kaptur: in what form could i ask the question that i could get a straight answer as to whether members will be able to amend the underlying 1,000-page trade agreement called the

transpacific partnership? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady may look to the managers for specific item of debate. ms. kaptur: the chairman of the rules committee cannot eaps my question, he's my friend. i think it would be important for members to know that. it's my understanding we are not allowed to amend the agreement -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady is no longer recognized. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to the rule and underlying bill. t.p.a. shouldn't stand for trade promotion authority, it should stand for taking prosperity away. because that's exactly what it's going to do for millions of hardworking americans. the house failed to advance this proposal less than a week ago and today the t.p.a. we are voting on is even worse.

and hiding behind a vote and hiding behind our brave first responders. this is shameful. republican leaders are doing everything they can to jam through a spint agenda that will depress -- special interest agenda, that will depress wages, exacerbate equality, and cost jobs. t.p.a. will take away the constitutional responsibility congress has to strengthen and improve the transpacific partnership. if we approve this measure, we are surrendering our ability to approve a trade agreement for working families. we are not voting on t.p.a. as the chairman said, but we are voting on t.p.a., on the rules to govern these negotiations and the process to be filed. if we vote for this t.p.a., we are saying we are fine moving forward on a trade agreement that has no enforcible provisions against currency provisions. meaning there are no protections to stop countries from devaluing their currency, and putting american manufacturers and jobs

at a competitive disadvantage. we are saying we are fine with the trade agreement that fails to address the critical issue of climate change. we are saying we are fine to entering into a trade agreement with countries like brunei where lgbt individuals can be stoned to death. we are saying we are fine having a trade agreement that weakens protections against human trafficking and fine with entering into an agreement with vietnam which denies workers collective bargaining rights while throwing advocates into prison. we are not voting on t.p.p., we are voting on t.p.a., but we are setting the rules for governing the negotiations and removing ourselves from the process of improving and strengthening this trade agreement. the house should reject this proposal and stand with hardworking americans. we should oppose t.p.a. we should oppose the rule. we have for 30 years have trade policies in this country that have failed american workers. driving down wages. increasing inequality.

and as a result costing jobs. a vote for fast track is a vote to abandon our responsibility to ensure trade works for our country and for american workers. i urge my colleagues to reject this rule, to reject the underlying bill, and vote no on t.p.a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts will control the time for the minority side and reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. session: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts virginia tech. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter to members of congress from the general president of the international association of firefighters opposing h.res. 321 when it atratches -- attaches trade promotion authority to h.r. 2146. at this time, mr. speaker i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. sherman: i thank the gentleman for yielding. if we vote for trade promotion authority, fast track without trade adjustment assistance, if that's how we vote today, that's what we'll get. the chair, the republican chair of the rules committee, has made it clear he's already used his precious time to start blaming democratic leadership for the fact that trade adjustment assistance will not become law. the fact is that if trade adjustment assistance ever comes before this house, it will no doubt be loaded by republican leadership with a host of poison pills making sure the democrats cannot vote for it. i can't vote for trade adjustment assistance. now, the proponents of trade promotion authority have had to misstate the actual economic facts. the figures on our trade surpluses and deficits in order

to make their case. they have come again and again and said we have a trade surplus with our free trade agreement partners. completely false. i will put into the record the chart showing listing each of our free trade agreement partners and we are running a $177 billion deficit in goods. includes services, you're now down to a little over $100 billion in deficit. how is it that member after member has come here and said something false? they have been fooled by slippery charlatans who feed them the following line. since nafta, we have a surplus with those countries we have free trade agreement. since nafta implies that's since the early 1990's. no, they mean those agreements we entered in since nafta. so look at our free trade agreements while ignoring nafta.

that's like looking at the calves -- cavs and ignore lebron. you can't do it. if you look at the success and failure of our free trade agreements, number one is nafta. if you include all of our free trade agreements, including nafta, we got $177 billion goods deficit. and then if you look at m.f.n. for china, you are talking $400 billion in deficit. that was not a free trade agreement. that was an even worse agreement. this t.p.p. is a gift to china. . first, it enshrines the idea that currency manipulation will be encouraged. preserving for them their number one tactic in running such a huge trade surplus with the united states. it hallows out american manufacturers thus endangering

our national security. and the rules of origin provision available for review in the basement will show you that goods that are 50% and 60% made in china, admitted to be made in china which means actually 70% or 80% really made in china come fast tracked in the united states china gets the benefit and doesn't get to make a single concession. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. -- the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i recognize three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: thank you. first we were all on the fast track. then, the slow track with post opponent into july. and now we're back on rush hour scheduling being told that fast track that has been mangled in the meantime with new changes that it has to be approved by high noon today.

well, railroading this bill through now will deny any opportunity to ensure that our trade policy gets on the right track. the fist trackers they've rejected every constructive improvement for a better trade measure that we have advanced. and even these fast trackers, if they're really candid with the american people there's not a member of this congress that knows what is in this agreement to the extent that vietnamese bureau does. it's been so secret tiff. we don't have one word that's been made publicly accessible to us how vietnam will enforce provisions to ensure greater worker freedom and opportunity instead of being part of a race to the bottom. what we do know about this fast track agreement from a recent canadian ruling is that

corporate panels will be empowered to charge taxpayers millions of dollars for the privilege of maintaining public health and safety laws. the language which my colleague from texas has referred to, preserving american laws, that's really meaningless. because, yes, they're preserved but when your city or your state acts to protect you foreign corporations are accorded more rights than american businesses and they can demand millions for keeping that law in place. and what we do know since last week this railroad has picked up some mighty unsavery characters. the -- unsavory characters. the idea that pope francis is formally releasing his cyclical on global warming, this has picked up a new troubling provision that would deny any opportunity to address the greatest environmental challenge that this world

faces. even t.p.p. supporters concede that it looks like a charter for corporate america rather than a high-level trade agreement. we learn, i think, more from ustr's past failures than current promises. ustr has never in its history successfully challenged worker or environmental abuses by any of our foreign trading partners. usually the reason that ustr fails is it really doesn't try. it doesn't seem to have a belief in law enforcement when it comes to worker and environmental abuse. and guatemala, it took it eight years to even bring a dispute. in honduras, it took nearly four years to issue another bureaucratic report. in peru, we cannot get the audit that it was responsible for obtaining. does the gentleman have another 15 seconds? mr. mcgovern?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman another 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. doggett: you know, asleep at the wheel is a great texas swing band but it is a horrible philosophy for trade law enforcement. reject this rule. help us get a better trade policy, protect american families, advance our economy. we can do better than this by rejecting this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker can i inquire from the gentleman from texas how many more speakers he has on his side? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you. i have no speakers. i'll close myself and not have additional speakers. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i'll close for our side, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me say to my colleagues they should be appalled by this process. this is, again, being brought up under a process where nobody

-- not just democrats but republicans as well cannot offer amendments. and the united states senate when t.p.a. was considered they were able to offer amendments. but when it came before the house last week we were told we could offer no amendments. the excuse we were given is because if we passed it will go right to the white house. but what we're doing today is actually not going to the white house, it's going back to the senate and yet we are begin being presented with a close -- again being presented with a closed process. why can't members on both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to make their views known on this important issue? why are we being shut out when it comes to the issue of trade and t.p.a.? i heard -- i heard a number of speakers say that this -- this debate is not about t.p.p. well, this is indeed about the trans-pacific partnership. whether or not t.p.p. is implemented will depend almost entirely on whether the president has fast track in place. the vote on fast track or

t.p.a. will determine the fate of the t.p.p. trade deal. so a yes vote on t.p.a. is a yes vote on t.p.p. it is that simple. history shows that is how it has worked time and time and time again. and fast track is not just about t.p.p. if we vote for t.p.a., for fast track, we're fast tracking any trade deal that any president negotiates anytime in the next six years. we have no idea who the next president will be, but you're giving the next president or next presidents the authority to have fast track authority on whatever they want. why are we just giving away all of our ability to play a role in these negotiations? the problem with these trade deals is that only the well-off and well-connected have a seat at the table. i urge my colleagues to put american workers first. vote no on the rule and vote no on the underlying -- on the

underlying bill. again, mr. speaker, the t.p.p. is modeled after a failed trade agreement. it will further erode our national economy and change the rules in ways that hurt american workers. we're supposed to be here to protect american workers and to create more opportunity and we are yet going down the road of another trade deal that's going to rob america of important middle-class jobs. it is appalling, and this process is appalling so vote no on the rule and vote no on the underlying legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. you know this debate today has been most interesting about the differences between the speakers who showed up today. one group of speakers for america, for growth, for america leading, for america engaging the world, cutting deals with our friends against one other huge country that will overrun in every single economic circumstance the rest

of the world because they do not respect intellectual property or rule of law. this is about gathering together the united states house of representatives, the united states senate to where we gather together the best rules and regulations that we can, parameters by which the president would go negotiate. this isn't about absent indicating our role or responsibility. it's trade promotion authority mr. speaker. please. we understand that some people haven't read the bill. we understand some people think this about t.p.p. or other agreements but it's not. this is about a simple process. are we going to exert our constitutional authority or are we going to engage the president to where the president can go engage the world on behalf of the american worker? are we going to lead or are we

going to stick our head in the sand? mr. speaker, america needs to lead and the world wants us to lead. mr. speaker the world wants american products and american business wants to sell to others without high prices, without tariffs. what we want to do is to compete. that's why we're here today. i urge adoption of this rule. i look forward to the debate that will follow. i look forward to our young chairman, paul ryan, leading that effort improving not only to the members here today and to you mr. speaker, but to the american people that we want more jobs. we've not created all the jobs that we needed in this country. we need more and in is a part of that effort. i urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for 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. 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, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a five-minute vote agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, 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 244, the nays are 181. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the

speaker's approval of the journal, which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the journal stands approved. would members take their conversations from the floor so the house can be in order.

members of the house are advised that proceedings will not continue on the floor of the house until the house is in order.

>> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. members of the house, would you please remove your conversations from the floor. clear the well. the gentlelady from new york. others. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> pursuant to house resolution 321, i call up the bill h.r.

2146 with the senate amendment thereto and i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill, designate the senate amendment and designate the moment. caller: h.r. 2146, allow federal law enforcement officers, firefighters and air traffic controlers to make penalty-free withdrawals from governmental plans after age 50 and for other purposes. senate amendment. mr. ryan of wisconsin moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 2146 with the amendment printed in house report 114-167. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 321, the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. 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: i ask unanimous

consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2146, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . plwleffin: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. we want to hear our chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: well, welcome back, everybody. i have to admit i'm a little disappointed that we are back here today. last week a bipartisan majority stepped up to pass trade promotion authority. that vote showed that republicans and democrats can still come together to do what is right for this country. it was a vote that i'm very proud of. unfortunately, many of our friends on the other side of the aisle would not stand with their

president and voted to sacrifice a program that they support, a program that they asked for in order to block our path. it was disappointing, but we are not going to be discouraged. that's why we are back here today. enacting trade promotion authority is critical for our economy and our national security. and so we are going to get it done here today. why do we need t.p.a.? well, mr. speaker, it's pretty easy. easy question to answer, because we need more trade. 95% of the world's consumers, they don't live in america. they live in other countries. and if we want to make more things here and sell them there then we need to tear down those trade barriers that make american goods and services more expensive. we know that trade is good for our economy.

one in five jobs in america are already tied to trade. and they pay on average 18% more. we also need more trade to bolster our foreign policy and our national security. stronger economic ties leads to stronger security ties. more market share means more inplunes. that's why so many national security -- influence. that's why so many national security forces, former military leaders, former secretary of defense, former secretaries of state have all called on congress to pass t.p.a. they understand what is at stake here mr. speaker. what is at stake here is no less than america's credibility. because the rules of the global economy, they are being written right now. the question is, who is going to write those rules? will it be the united states and our allies? or will it be other nations that don't share our values? or don't share our commitment to free enterprise and the rule of

law. our friends in asia and europe are getting ready to place their bets. they want to sign up for american-style free enterprise. but they need to know that the united states is going to stand strong as a reliable ally, as a reliable trading partner before they do that. that's what t.p.a. is all about. so how does it work? we have heard all kinds of crazy misinformation spread by the opponents of of trade. i mean crazy stuff, really. let me one more time explain what t.p.a. is, and what t.p.a. is not. t.p.a. is a process. it's not an agreement. it's a process that gives us the best shot at getting a good trade agreement. it's a process dating back decades that congress has used to insert itself into trade

negotiations in order to provide more accountability and more transparency to the administration, to the president and this t.p.a., this t.p.a. has more transparency and more accountability than any version ever before. it lays out 150 objectives and guidelines that the administration must follow while negotiating a trade deal. these are our priorities. if the president wants an agreement, then he must meet to address these priorities. he must meet these guidelines in order to get it passed through congress. this t.p.a. also requires that the administration consult with congress during the negotiations. give us access to all of the text. provide timely briefings on demand. allow members to attend the negotiating rounds as accredited advisors if we want to. if we are in session, we send our people much that's what the

zinke amendment accomplishes. finally, perhaps most importantly, mr. speaker, t.p.a. ensures that the american people can lead any trade agreement, every trade agreement, long before anyone is asked to vote on it. 60 days. an agreement must be made public and posted online for 60 days before it can even be sent to congress. this turns fast track into slow track track. mr. speaker, it's temperatures, it's effective oversight, and it's accountability. because if the president doesn't meet these requirements or doesn't follow the negotiating objectives we can turn t.p.a. off for that agreement. we can cancel the vote. we can amend the agreement or stop it entirely. so ultimately we, congress, we always have the final say. no agreement takes effect. no laws are changed unless we vote to allow it. this process t.p.a., creates a path between congress and the

administration that allows our trading partners to know that we speak with one voice. it allows them to make their best efforts, knowing that as long as the administration follows t.p.a. congress will not try to rewrite an agreement later. in other words it gives america credibility, mr. speaker. and, boy, do we need credibility right now. make no mistake. all of my colleagues, make no mays take, the world is watching us. they are watching this vote. the foreign policy failures of the last few years, not to mention the stunt pulled here last week have capitals all around the world wondering if america still has it. are we still the leader? are we still the republic that other countries aspire to be? they want to know that we are still willing to engage, still willing to lead. that we are still a nation that's out front. or are we in retreat and decline? we are here today to answer that

question again. america does not retreat. america leads. and that is why i urge my colleagues to vote yes for t.p.a. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: it is said that we should write the rules not china. but make no mistake. the we is not congress. leaving us with only a yes or no vote at the very end. to vote for t.p.a. now is to surrender congressional leverage to get it right in shaping t.p.p., the most significant trade negotiation in decades. congress will have settled for a bill with so-called congressional negotiating objectives, so vage they are essentially meaningless.

it won't matter to those who basically approach trade with a 19th century dogma, trade between any two nations will naturally be beneficial. simply matching the comparative economic advantages of of each. but that has not worked out when in this era one nation manipulates its currency as it trades with the other. when nations suppress worker rights to keep their wages low. or degrade their environment to help them compete. or when nations heavily subsidize their markets, or they keep their markets closed while their competitor keeps them very open in vital areas whether industrial or agricultural. so let us write the rules. but congress must be sure they are right. we must make sure that the

beneficiaries are the many in our nation not just the few. as often stated in this debate trade does, indeed, create winners and losers. as one who has worked hard to help put together expanded trade agreements, i know that in a globalizing world economy failure to write the rules effectively is one of the reasons there have been too many losers, millions of jobs lost, with middle class wages stagnant for decades. while the relative few have done so well. congress should not give what would be identify sentionly a blank check to u -- essentially a blank check on ustr on key outstanding issues on the t.p.p. negotiations. with this t.p.a. you are saying fine, to no meaningful currency

provision. you are saying fine to giving private investors in growing numbers the ability to choose an unregulated arbitration panel instead of a well established judicial system in order to overturn local or national health or environmental regulations. with this t.p.a. you cannot be confident. vietnam and mexico would adhere to meaningful labor standards. with this t.p.a. you can't be confident that japan will open its market at long last to our cars or agricultural products. and with this t.p.a., you can't be confident that there will be access to lifesaving medicines. despite a bombardment of rhetoric, instead of the approach that we laid out in a substitute that we have not even been allowed to consider in the committee or in this house the

reality that this t.p.a. will not put congress in the driver's seat but the back seat. for t.p.p. and for six years in important negotiations with europe and t. tip and who knows what else. congress has -- ttip and who noles what else. congress has the responsibility to get trade negotiations on the right track not the fast track. vote no. i keep the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield one minute to a senior member of the house ways and means committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. brady: thank you, chairman ryan for your leadership. free trade, economic freedom. with as little government interfeernts as possible. it's one of the great economic rights of every american. given the choice between more economic freedom or less, we

should always choose more. we know if america doesn't lead in fair trade, we'll grow weaker and our foreign competitors will grow stronger and our factories and manufacturers will be priced out and shut down. texas is made for trade. america is made for trade. it's time through expanded trade to preserve these economic principles that have helped us thrive and grow. that's why congress flexing its constitutional muscle and setting clear rules for future american trade is not just a good thing for america. it's a great thing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: thank you. i now yield two minutes to the chairman ofure caucus and a member of our committee -- of our caucus and a member of our committee, mr. becerra of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. so this trade promotion

authority legislation, as we heard is all about writing the rules. writing the rules on trade. it's about who will lead or who will retreat on insisting on free and fair trade. this t.p.a. legislation sets forward the instructions on how we will write the rules in any trade agreement. ok. who is going to lead writing the rules? on currency manipulation where countries, not just the companies but the countries themselves that want to trade with us, are cheating by manipulating their currency to make the value of their goods look less expensive than american products in the same area. when those countries are cheating, what are we going to say should be the rules when it comes to turncy manipulation? under this t.p.a., we can't say anything. because we are prohibited from including anything in a trade agreement that will deal with currency manipulation.

so you then have to ask a second question. wait a minute, you're telling me countries going to sign these deals are allowed to cheat when it comes to how they manipulate products will look cheaper than ours? and we are supposed to depend on those same countries that are cheating to now enforce the rules in these agreements against companies in those countries that are cheating? . what kind of instruction is that? what about when it comes to letting people in america know what's in these deals? what if we want to know where the products that are gick to brought and sold in our store, where they come from? shouldn't we have the right, if we want to know the country of origin of a particular product? i've heard about tainted milk coming from places around the world. we've heard about toys with dangerous chemicals in them that our kids play with. don't we want toe know where these things are coming from? not that we're going to degrade

the place where they come from, but we want to know -- made in the u.s.a. or made somewhere else. under this t.p.a., we can't ask those questions. we won't be able to find out where product is made because someone else, a tribunal, not an american court, will decide whether we can label a product as made in the u.s.a. or not. and right now, these international tribunals that have no american jew rests, judges, sitting on them, get to decide for us if americans should have the right to know where a product is coming from that they're buying from a store outside of their neighborhood. how does that lead on making sure trade is free and fair if we can't even put a label on a product coming from some other country that has in the past sent us tainted products? we can do much better. we have over two or three decades of experience writing trade deals. we know what work, we know what

doesn't. the thing we know most is that enforcement is the most difficult aspect of trade because most companies in faraway places don't follow american law and american rules and they cheat and they think they can get away with it. we can do much better. let's get a better trade deal that's free and fair. this doesn't give us that, it doesn't give us the right rules. reject this t.p.a. legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's my privilege to yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, another distinguished member of the committee, mr. kind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kind: last week new york a bipartisan majority, house granted trade authority to elevate standards for our farmers our workers, our business, so we can compete in one of the fastest growing regions in the global economy. it's time for taos move forward.

i feel confident that with the assurances we received from the republican leadership this body will have another opportunity to also pass trade adjustment assistance so that the training programs and education for the workers who need it will be in place. out of consideration for some of our colleagues who are trying to get home today with their communities after last night's terrible shootings, i yield back the remainder of my time. i encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. it's time for north korea move on. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: -- it's time for america to move on. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker mr. ranking member, mr. chairman. if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. that seems to be the approach on trade. despite the fact that t.p.a.

passed the house last week by eight votes, only eight votes at no point did the light bulb go off for the leadership that perhaps they could work with the majority of the democratic caucus to find agreementen how to move forward. i don't know why that didn't occur to you. instead of cooperation, they've opted to use procedural tricks to pass the t.p.a. now, the leadership has chosen to take a bipartisan bill, passed by both chambers of congress that would aid our law enforcement officers and public safety workers and inject the unrelated controversial trade debate into it. i can say that because i'm one of the sponsors of the bill. this bill, the defending public safety employees' retirement act, i worked with my friend, congressman reichert, on, on behalf of the men and women who serve the public in physically

demanding work each and every day. it would ensure that they could assess and access their full retirement benefits at the time they retire without incurring a tax penalty. it's a good bill. i'm not only one of the sponsors, i voted for it. but today this bill to provide tax fairness for our law enforcement officers, has been twisted, diminished, to a convenience vehicle to ram through fast track for deep -- far deeply flawed trade bill. this is not the same bill, mr. ranking member through the speaker, through the chairman this is not the same bill we voted on friday. please reed this bill. -- read this bill. it's not. i urge a no vote. in fact, the president of the international association of firefighters, has written a letter urging members oo-- to

oppose attaching t.p.a. to this bill. the transpacific partnership would establish the biggest trade agreement we've seen in years, encompassing 40% of the world's economy. we need to take our time and do it right. in its current form, t.p.p. is woefully inadequate and fails to ensure a fair deal for american workers. issues that have been neglected in t.p.p. such as prohibiting currency manipulation ensuring food safety, as an example, only 1% of imported fish into this country seafood, is inspected. i hope you ask the next time you go into a restaurant, you ask the proprietor is this -- has this fish been inspected? he'll look at you like you have three heads. sthant interesting? creating strong rules of origin. you saw how this country mr. speaker --

mr. levin: i yield 30 seconds. mr. pascrell: this country got shafted with our deal with korea on country of origin automobiles. you don't see any more cars traveling thru korea or certainly china that are made in the united states of america. we are taking a back seat. instead of protecting the interests of u.s. workers, not protectionism, we're not advocating that, this trade deal gives protections and sweetheart deals to multinational corporations. pure and simple. and the american people look at every poll from the left from the right, from north south, east, west, do not accept this bill and we shouldn't either. thank you mr. speaker i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to another member of our committee, mr. davis of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you very much,

mr. speaker. i was thinking what a difference a week does not make. the vast majority of the people in my congressional district were opposed to fast track last week, and they're even more opposed to fast track this week. we've seen fast track before. we've seen the jobs leave our community, our district, our state, and our nation. fast enough. they don't need our help. they don't need anybody else's help. we need to create jobs here in america, not have them flee. i agree with my colleagues who have said vote no. i agree with the people of my congressional district. and i shall vote no.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cuellar: thank you mr. speaker. i thank you for yielding, ranking member. i support t.p.a. to give the president the authority to negotiate this agreement. it's strr simple. a lot of those countries already are able to send their goods into our countries duty-free system of what we want to do is allow our exporting companies to be able to export to those countries duty-free also so we can send our goods over there. look at what is happening in texas. texas exports more than $289 million last year, up 146% from 2004. let's look at the number of couldn't companies that export. they're not the big companies. 93% of those exporting companies 40,737 that export,

93% of them are small and medium-sized businesses. i ask you to please support t.p.a. it's good for texas, it's good for the united states and it's a no brainer to allow taos export to those countries. thank you so much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen from wisconsin continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you very much. the people of this gat nation are watching us todayand they are begging and pleading with us to please vote down this bill. this bill, allyou have to do, whonows better than the american people who live in the towns and the cties where they've seen their manufacturing plants close andhey've seen their jobs shipped overseaed, every trade deal has done it.

let's look at the china deal. as a result of the china deal, two million manufacturing jobs have been shipped from america over to china. look at nafta. yeah, they created jobs, but where they created -- but where did they create jobs? in mexico. where did the manufacturing plants go? they went to mexico. that's why the american people are ringing everybody's office and urging them, please let us not lose any more jobs. and those of you who are concerned about income equality the reason we have that as a burning issue in the heart and soul, particularly of middle class america is because we're seing the middle class vanish. these are the jobs. these manufacturing jobs, ladies and gentlemen. not these big, polluting, what the big corporate presidents

make millions of dollar. yeah, they're going to make plenty of millions of dollars but these jobs go into the middle section of our economic stream and the lower income. look at akron, ohio, look at atlanta, georgia, look at chicago, look at detroit once vibrant cities and the backbone of america is manufacturing. we're shipping it out to the world and you know what else we're shipping out there? we're shipping these jobs. not only that, the profits of these companies, last year $2 trillion of profits. held in these overseas accounts away from our taxing structure. can't you see america is getting weaker because of these trade policies? i urge you to vote no and stand up for the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it is now my pleasure to yield one minute to the

gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. first, let me thank our ranking member for yielding and once again for your tremendous leadership. i rise in strong opposition to this bill and to once again say no to fast track. this legislation cynically uses a bill that would exempt retired federal police officers and firefighters from paying a penalty on withdrawals from their retirement accounts if they retire after the age of 50. now what does that have to do with fast track? absolutely nothing. this is just plain wrong. what's more, we know now that the senate is consider attaching the trade adjustment assistance, t.a.a., to the recently passed african growth and accountability act, better known as agoa, as a means to get this trade package passed. that's why yesterday my colleagues our congressional black caucus chair congressman

butterfield, congresswoman bass, congressman ellison and myself, we sent a letter to the senate leadership expressing our optician -- opposition to what they're trying to do, to use agoa to promote trade. the african trade act has promoted the growth of democratic institutions throughout africa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: in no way should that be used as a bargaining chip on this bill. it's outrageous. members should not have to choose between programs that they support, like t.a.a. and agoa and supporting fast track. these procedural gimmicks are outrageous and they're fundamentally dishonest. if members fall for this maneuver, we not only risk imperiling the t.a.a., a program that many of our constituents relie on, but also agoa.

we've got to vote no on this bill, no to attaching t.a.a. to agoa. let's get back to the drawing board and come up with a real fair free, transparent trade bill. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, who i think is ranking on the asia subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. sherman: if you vote for this bill, you get fast track without trade adjustment assistance. there is no assurance trade adjustment assistance will come to this floor or it will come to this floor in a form the republicans or democrats will support. the supporters of this deal can't make their case without repeating demonstrably false statistics. the fact is we won a $177

billion -- run a $177 billion trade deficit in goods with the countries we have free trade agreements. $75 billion in services brings the net to over $100 billion deficit. so how have so many members been misled by charlatan lobbyists in coming to this floor and giving stalls statistics? they are given this slippery phrase. go down to the floor and talk about what has happened since nafta. now, since nafta, usually sounds like since the early 1990's. what they mean is excluding nafta. excluding nafta when we review free trade agreements is like excluding lebron james when you evaluate the cavaliers. this bill is catastrophic for our national security. it hollows out our manufacturing base. and it is the greatest gift to china that we could possibly

make. because it enshrines the sang row santh nature of curn -- sack row sang nature of surncy shall -- currency man national park plays. in addition, the rules of origin provisions allow goods that are admitted to be 50% or 60% made in china. that are actually 70% or 80% made in china to get fast tracked into the united states. so china gets 80% of the benefit of this agreement without having to admit a single american export. as to vietnam, our workers are going to have to compete against 40 cent an hour labor, but we are told we get free access -- the speaker pro tempore: is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. sherman: we are told we get free access to the vietnamese markets. vietnam doesn't have freedom, vietnam doesn't have markets. they are not going to buy our exports anymore than their

communist party decides to do so. the chairman points out that with trade comes influence. that's right. there will be nike lobbyists here financed by this bill and its effects, lobbying against going after vietnam for its oppression of religion and its oppression of unions. so they will have -- they will have influence here in washington. they will continue not to have freedom. and we will continue to lose jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: how much time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has 22 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. ryan: we are only two speakers left on our side with deference to our members trying to get home to south carolina. i yield to mr. tiberi. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, the chairman of the trade subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is

recognized for two minutes. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. read the bill. i got it right here. the only difference is the number at the top changed. the content is the same. t.p.a. is not a trade deal. it's a process that holds this president accountable. sets in motion congress inserting itself -- by the way nafta? i just continue to get blown away by the misinformation. no wonder the american people get confused. i take this personally. as the gentleman from new jersey knows, my dad lost his job way before nafta. we have a trade surplus in manufacturing with nafta. we have a trade surplus in services with nafta. we have a trade surplus in agriculture food, and beverages with nafta. in fact, we have a trade surplus with nafta if you take out oil and energy products. we had a trade surplus in manufacturing with nafta. i do get fired up about this.

95% of the world's population is outside the united states. a multinational corporation can move anywhere they want to. a fortune 500 company could move anywhere they want to, and they do. lakeshore in my district, a family owned business, they cannot. this is about breaking down barriers for lakeshore. for screen machines. because they can't move a plant overseas and they are at a competitive disadvantage. a large corporation can move. they can't. ladies and gentlemen, this is about jobs. this is about the american worker. this is about the fact that we have the ability today to compete anywhere in the world if those trade barriers are broken down. we have to break them down, mr. speaker. one out of ever every five jobs, they are good jobs. vote yes on t.p.a. and yes for the american workers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i'm trying to limit our speakers to one minute. so now i will give one minute to

a very distinguished member from california, karen bass. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. bass: thank you, mr. speaker. last week i spoke in favor of h.r. 1891, the agoa extension and enhancement act of 2015. in the middle of tremendous controversy and tension over t.p.a., it was encouraging to have legislation that wasn't controversial. in fact had overwhelming support with 397 votes. the bill was sent to the senate and we were hopeful that h.r. 1891 would have already made it to the president's desk. unfortunately, the bill is a victim of its own success. so many rumors are floating around that because agoa is popular, supported by both democrats, republicans senators and house members, that now senators are considering adding more controversial bills into agoa. we are hearing t.a.a. might be added. the press is even reporting consideration is being given to using agoa as a vehicle to

extend the ex-im bank. we hear the thinking since agoa failed in the house last week that if it's -- if t.a.a. failed in the house last week, if it's added into agoa, we will all vote for it. agoa can and should stand on its own. the senate should pass agoa and send it to the president. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield now one minute to the gentlelady from new york who is ranking on small business ms. velazquez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. velazquez: i want to take this opportunity to thank the ranking member for yielding. mr. speaker, once again we are being asked to vote for an agreement that will cost jobs, undermine environmental protections, and erode workers' rights. all in the name of so-called free trade. this agreement is being negotiateded in the dark behind closed doors. that secretive process may benefit large multinational companies and their lobbyists,

but it does not help small manufacturers in brooklyn. it does nothing for new yorkers struggling to raise a family while keeping their jobs from being exported. when vareous -- we end up with bad deals for american workers and we have seen this in the past. new york lost 374,000 manufacturing jobs since nafta and the world trade organization agreement. this vote, mr. speaker, comes down to a simple question. are you going to side with wall street, large corporations, and their lobbyists? or will you stand with working families in your district? i will take the latter. vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield, two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: in washington, we

never seem to lack for self-certified smart people. they are the folks that know what's best for you and your family. and while they, today, are insisting on railroading through this fast track trade deal is it -- and i say it so sweet for working families, is it so unreasonable to ask what do the workers think about this bill? and while the environmental provisions have been secreted away from the public, we do know that ustr does not believe in environmental law enforcement. is it unreasonable to stop and say, what did those who advocate for clean water and clean air and conservation of our resources, what did they think about this trade deal? i believe they support fair trade. they recognize that it raises all votes but unfair trade

sinks too many of them. they are capsized by competing with those who paid an average minimum wage of 60 cents an hour and whose only worker organization is the communist party in vietnam. i believe our workers deserve respect. this bill asks american businesses to go out and compete with countries that mistreat their workers, that pollute the air and water and destroy their natural resources. and those that inflate -- adjust their currency, manipulate in ways that are unfair. railroading this bill through today will deny any opportunity which we have struggled so long for so many months to try to achieve to make this a better right track bill. the fast trackers have rejected every constructive improvement that we have offered to this measure. and all of us here in congress

have to concede we know less about what is in this trade bill than the vietnamese politte burrow than the malaysian government that has sex trafficking. we need an open fair process to advance real trade opportunities for all families. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. doggett: reject this fast track. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: we had one additional speaker. i don't see her. lrts. -- all right. mr. ryan, the chairman, and i have agreed we'll each speak briefly. you know, i started off by saying it's said we should write the rules, not china. and that's true. we have been striving to try to help write the rules. we did so for years. we introduced a substitute bill

that outlined where we were coming from and where we thought these negotiations should go. that wasn't even given time for discussion. so here's what we are left with. when you vote for t.p.a. under these circumstances essentially what we are saying to this administration it's essentially a blank check. and they take, they may let us see some of the documents, but often in ways we can't discuss in public. this is likely to add up to a t.p.p.. it will be even more controversial than this t.p.a. for that reason, i strongly urge that as was said earlier, we slow down this process in order to try to find a root -- route

to a t.p.p. that would have broad bipartisan support. that has always been my aim rather this kind of a vote with only a small handful, few handfuls of democratic votes making this far, far, far from a bipartisan vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, for those who are coming to the floor protesting this particular process, for the minority, it's the stunt pulled last week that brought about this process. we talked a lot about what t.p.a. is. it's a process. not a trade agreement. i want every member in this body to think about what this vote represents. it's one that will speak loudly about our political system. can it still work? it's a vote about what kind of congress we want to be.

will we empower ourselves in trade agreements or just let the administration do whatever it wants? it's a vote about what kind of country we want to have. are we still committed to leading? are we still the symbol of freedom and free enterprise? so mr. speaker, this is a vote for accountability and for transparency. this is a vote for a stronger economy and higher wages. this is a vote for our system of free enterprise. this is a vote for american leadership. this is a vote to declare that america still has it. this is a vote to re-establish america's credibility. the world is watching. vote yes. i yield.

the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. prosecution, 321, the previous question is ordered. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i ask for a recorded vote. 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. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the motion will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of h.r. 160. 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 218. the nays are 208. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

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: the question is on passage of the bill. 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 280, the nays are 140. the bill is passed. weather the motion to reconsider is laid on -- without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members are asked -- -- advised to take their conversations off the floor.

for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader, mr. mccarthy, the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend mr. mccarthy, the majority

leader. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. on monday, no votes are expected in the house. on tuesday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30. on wednesday and thushes, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition the house will consider h.r. 2042, the rate payer protection act sponsored by representative ed whitfield this bill is essential for families all across the nation. if we do not act the electricity bills will skyrocket as a result of the clean power plan rule. the house will also consider the annual appropriations -- continue the annual appropriations process with

consideration of fiscal year 2016 interior appropriations bill sponsored by representative ken calvert. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. i note that the export-import bank, which of course expires on june 30, is not among the scheduled pieces of legislation. as the gentleman knows, speaker boehner has been quoted as saying that if we don't pass the export-import bank, that there are thousands of jobs on the line that would disappear pretty quickly if the ex-im bank were to disappear. he then again said as the chamber closest to the people, the house works best when it's allowed to work its will. the majority leader knows that i am absolutely convinced that the export-import bank is supported by the majority of members of this house. but this house has not been allowed to work its will on the

export-import bank. predecessors of yours and a very dear friend of mine, senator blunt, said not too long ago that he believed that if the bill were brought to the floor of the house, it would have the votes. more importantly, because he's now, of course, in the other body he -- among leadership in the other body, said that the bill had the votes in the senate. i believe he's right on both of those observations. i understand the majority leader is not for the bill. it's my understanding that the speaker is. so then i would hope that those of white house support it and frankly those who oppose it, would have the opportunity as the speaker indicated for the house to work its will. can the gentleman tell me whether there are any plans prior to june 30 when the export-import bank authorization

to give loans expires, are there any plans to bring that legislation before this house in a timely fashion so that the authorization would not expire and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman said he knows my stance on this issue. no, there is no action pending, scheduled before the house. mr. hoyer: i apologize, could the gentleman repeat himself? mr. mccarthy: there is no action scheduled, no. mr. hoyer: does the majority leader then to have the authority of the export-import bank to expire, not withstanding the speaker's observation that it will cost thousands of jobs? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. there is no action scheduled at this appropriate time. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for repeating his answer. i heard that answer. but my question to the gentleman

was is it his intention that the export-import bank expire and therefore not bring legislation to the floor? mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding for the third time with the same question. there is no pending action before this house for next week. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for repeating for a third time his answer to me. mr. speaker i would simply observe sadly that the representation the house can work its will on an issue of great importance to the united states and to jobs in the united states will not be brought to this floor notwithstanding the fact that 180 democrats have signed a discharge petition and 60 republicans filed a bill to extend the export-import bank. that is 240 votes, mr. speaker,

as the peeker well could add himself. 240 votes is a majority of this house. they reflect in my view, mr. speaker the will of this house. and it is extraordinarily regrettable that when the speaker of the house says that if we don't do something, thousands of american jobs are going to be lost, it is particularly regrettable just after we had a vote on a bill that many people believe are going to lose us jobs and therefore they opposed. how sad it is that we don't bring to the floor a bill which will like 85 other countries, 85 other countries, help us export goods. those 85 country, mr. speaker

are not going to stop helping their countries export goods so the loss will be to our exporters and those they employ. i very much regret that that won't be brought to the floor as the majority leader has told me, it is not scheduled. i know it's not scheduled. i lament the fact that it's not scheduled and representative chris collins of new york said i can't figure out for the life of me why my party, the republican party, that stands for jobs and in every conference meeting, it's jobs and the economy chairman of the ways and means committee is on the floor he, talks about jobs and the economy. and here i am, says chris collins, in the minority of my own conference fighting to defend the export-import bank which is the best example of creating jobs in america. i regret that that's not being

brought to the floor and i won't ask the gentleman the question again, because he's already told me it's not scheduled and apparently there's no intention of scheduling it. i regret that. on that, mr. leader, if i can ask you, we passed now six appropriation bills. yesterday the labor-hhs bill was marked up in subcommittee in the financial -- and the financial services in full committee. can the gentleman tell me whether it is the intention whether they're scheduled right now or not, to bring all 2 appropriations bills to the floor before -- well, whenever. all 12 bills to the floor? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman knows, this is the earliest we have ever started the appropriations process. the gentleman is correct, we are halfway through the 12 bills having passed six already. bringing up interior next week. it is our intention to do the work we are responsible for in finishing the appropriations process.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that. let me ask him first, as he knows what's happening in the senate whether they can take those bills up. does the gentleman contemplate as the majority leader or does he know whether the speaker contemplates any effort to come to a bipartisan agreement as was done with the ryan -- with mr. ryan and senator murray, met and came to grips with a resolution and compromise on what otherwise one the sequester 302 allocation on discretionary spend chg the chairman of the committee, as you know, chairman rogers, has called ill-conceived and unrealistic. does the majority leader know whether there's any plan to try to get us from the gridlock that we are apparently in one more time on the appropriations process to a place as ryan-murray got us to where we moved ahead in a bipartisan way and in fact funded government although it wasn't until

december we had a stop-gap measure in there, is there anything scheduled to discuss that or pursue that compromise? i yield to my friend. . mr. mccarthy: as the gentleman knows there's no gridlock here. we passed half of the appropriations early. started the process earlier than ever before. the bill before, more than 46 democrats joining us in repealing the medical device tax. i would probably ask the gentleman that his question really goes to the minority leader on the senate side, harry reid. the question is reading some of his statements that he wants to create a shutdown, which i think would be wrong for the american people. i think the best way forward is for the democrats and the republicans in the senate to take up d.o.d. appropriations and move that to the president's desk. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend. there's no democrat in this house, in the senate or in the white house that wants to shut down this government.

as a matter of fact, we haven't done that. it was done in 1995 and early 1996. it was done last year when many in your party said shut it down if the president doesn't change his immigration policy. so any suggestion mr. speaker, that democrats want to shut down the government is simply incorrect. now what the minority leader has said in the senate, as i believe, is that until such time as sequester is changed that it is not useful to waste time on bills that will not become law. as we did, of course, many years during the ryan budgets which were never implemented. they were never implemented in the house of representatives fully. not once. why? because as mr. rogers said they were ill conceived and unreal -- ill-conceived and

unrealistic. so i just want to make it clear to the majority leader that i am prepared to work with him and with others to get us to a compromise on levels of funding that are realistic and well-conceived by mr. rogers, by mr. cochran and by others. until we do that we're going to be in a place where we're going to be, i predict in late september, on the threshold of giving some fear that the government's going to shut down again. the greatest government on the face of the earth. i'm not sure what people around the world thought when we shut our government down for 16 days. it wasn't a confidence-builder, that's for sure. now, we have another item that we're losing confidence on, on the highway bill. mr. speaker, you didn't mention -- mr. leader, anything about

the highway bill being scheduled. i understand it does not expire until july 30, so we have about six weeks, maybe a little longer than that. does the gentleman know whether there's anyompromise being achieved so that we can give confidence to states counties, municipalities, contractors, the business community that they will have a fding stream to invest in building, repairing a maintaining our infrastructure in this country? and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i will answer your question, but first i just want to make sure i clarify on your early yes question. i'm just reading from "politico," as you've been reading other statements here. it says the senate democrats prepared to shut down the government. leader reid talked about the

obstructionist plan for the summer. they have a plan and title for it obstructionist plan for the summer. because they plan to block appropriations bills, we're heading for anoth shutdown. i read another article during the same time period, senator schumer said h was working with the administration on this. i do not think this is helul, and for the history of why we are where we are, sequester was idea from this administration. the president is the one who put that into the bill. we are writing appropriations bills to the law. that is what our rules are and what we are doing. we are getting our work done and we're hopeful that this democratic plan of obstructionist throughout the summer will not come true. you asked about the highway bill. this is a very good question and one i want to work with you on because we were working together on this. republicans and democrats from our committee unfortunately,s the gentleman may know a month

or so ago your side of the aisle said they had to stop rking with us. and part of the reason we were given, because it fell into the obstructionist plan for the summer,hat it wasn't just about appropriations that you wanted to somehow shut down transportation, which we do not want to do. we want to t to a five-year plan, and we were working with you on offsets to be able to pay for this throughout the rest of the year. so unfortunately when the democrats decided to stop this program we had to just go to july. and we know we have some time left. we are very committed to getting this done. we think it's important for america to keep them working and we hope you'll come back to the table and work with us because we'll be more than willing to work with you. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his observation. i think that's my reputation of wanting to work to constructively achieve joint objectives. in this case the highway bill.

mr. ryan's on the floor, i won't ask him to yield for questions as to whether or not the ways and means committee has come up with a way to finance the highway bill. i know he says it won't be a gasoline tax, which historically republican presidents have been for. i'm not suggesting that be it but maybe tax reform as my friend has said publicly for that, but i will repeat, mr. leader, there's no democrat that wants to shut down the government. i hear what you said. i know the quote. what they have said is they're not going to shut it down indirectly as you want to do. now, you've done it directly. i don't mean you personally, but the only two times that i served in the congress of the united states over the last 34 years where the government was shut down as a policy was in 1995 under newt gingrich and in the last congress.

only time. i've been here 34 years. has it happened inadvertently for a couple days? yes, it has, because the legislation wasn't agreed to or we couldn't get it to the president in time or things of that nature. but let me say something because on your side of the aisle you love to say this. you love to point to place at the feet of president obama sequestration. now, my friend the majority leader mr. speaker, has not been here as long as i have. but sequestration originally started or may have even started before then but certainly in gramm-rudman. phil gramm from texas. and mr. rudman from new hampshire. that's when we saw it started. we saw the across the board cuts, the 1%, the 2%, the 3%. now, we defeated them but

that's part of sequestration. but more importantly, on 7/15/11, your side in charge of the congress offered a bill that you called cut, cap and balance. now, this was five days or six days before your allegation is mr. liu went to the majority leader then, mr. reid, and said maybe sequestration will help get this bill through. first of all mr. speaker, we were confronting the failure to re-authorize the payment of america's bills, the debt limit. that was what we were facing and what mr. lew was suggesting was that the republicans like sequestration. maybe if we put that in the bill, even though we don't like it, they will vote for not

defaulting on the national debt. and in fact that's what happened. but if you look at your cut, cap and balance bill, your bill -- i voted against -- the fallback that you suggested was sequestration. that was about a week before mr. lew said to mr. reid, maybe that will get our republican friends to support paying the national debt. so when i hear -- and that passed, by the way, on the 19th of july, 2011. it was six days later that mr. lew, in trying to get something done to make sure that america did not default, suggested to mr. reid maybe putting that in the bill will get the republicans' votes so we will pay our debts. i get a little -- the problem is if you know the facts, you get a little frustrated hearing this representation. the president was for sequester. well, let's just for the sake

of argument say that nobody here was for sequester. then, let's get rid of sequester. but if you're for sequester, i get it, you don't want to change it. there are a lot of your members certainly don't want to change it. sequester i tell people all over this country when i talk to them sequester's a complicated word. starts with s. stands for stupid. it is a policy unrelated to opportunities to challenges and to needs. it was a number pulled out of the air. so i would hope, mr. leader, that we don't talk about you did it, you did it, whoever did it, but let's talk about how we solve the problems confronting our country. ex-im is one of them. appropriation bills that we can agree on another. highway bills funding to give confidence to our economy and

to our entities that have to keep people moving and commerce moving, let's give them confidence. let's sit down, let's get these done let's bring it to the floor as speaker boehner said, let this house work its will. the the gentleman talked about 46 democrats that voted with him and his party on the most recent bill which was a tax reduction which as all tax reductions that you brought to the floor are unpaid for. and very frankly as the father of three daughters, grandfather of three grandchildren and the great grandfather of three great grandchildren, i don't like the fact that expectation is they will pay the bill. and they don't vote, of course, so they can't vote for or against this. my daughters can, but notwithstanding 46 people voted for it on our side of the aisle because they're for the policy. but i will tell you i talked to a lot of them, they're not for not paying for it, but they

were put in position of either being for something they're for or being against something because it's not paid for and hurting future generations. the only reason i mention that, as the gentleman brought it up and i will tell you that there is very broad almost unanimous sentiment on our side that we ought to pay for things. and when that policy was in place we balanced the budget for four years in a row. unless the gentleman wants to respond to me, mr. speaker, i'll yield back. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: yield for one minute. i appreciate the gentleman's comments and hopefully i could take the gentleman by his comments that he's willing to work with us on highway and coming back to the table. i appreciate that. we may disagree on whether the administration put it in the bill in sequester, but i think history will prove me right, but i look forward, just as we worked throughout this week, we just passed two bills today on a bipartisan level.

you may disagreed with one but 28 on your side of the aisle agreed with it. so did your president. we look forward of getting this work done for the american people and we work within the current law and that's what we look to do and i look forward to continue to work with you. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i appreciate the gentleman's observations and i would simply say mr. speaker, that in that spirit, there are 240 people in this house who think the ex-im bank ought to be extended and re-authorized. i hope we will follow that process, and i would reiterate yes, i'm willing to work with the gentleman on highways or anything else which will benefit the american people and our country and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow, and further when the house adjourns on that day it

adjourn to meet on tuesday, june 23, 2015, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour, debate -- morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, seek recognition? mr. ryan: i call up the bill h.r. 1190 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 108. h.r. 1190. a bill to repeal the provisions of the patient protection and affordable care act providing for the independent payment advisory board. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 319, the amendment printed in part b of house report 114-157 is adopted and the bill as amended is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairs and

ranking minority members of the committees on ways and means and energy and commerce. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks minutes. the chair recognizes and include extraneous material on h.r. 119 o -- 1190. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: i ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters between committees of jurisdiction be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, what we are bringing to the floor today as is dr. roe's bill to repeal the independent payment advisory board. this is a bill that came out of

the ways and means committee with a bipartisan vote. this is an agency that members of both sides of the aisle believes does not have the right to exist, should not exist, and does not follow our democratic process. let me explain why we are doing this. there's no greater example of the conflict of visions than this. obamacare created something called independent payment advisory board. it's a board of 15 people who are not elected or appointed. they have the power to cut medicare's payments for treatments. they have a quota in which they have to hit in order to find the same number to actually cut. so every year a formula kicks in, the 15 un-elected bureaucrats find where they are going to cut medicare payments to providers to hit that quota.

they can do all of this without congress' approval. the idea, of course, is that un-elected bureaucrats know best. un-elected bureaucrats know better than patients, their doctors, or their representatives in congress. they'll know which treatment works the best because they are detached, they are distant, they are above the fray. they are not involved in the emotions or the personal relationships that such personal decisions like your health care ultimately involve. that's the big problem. they are totally unaccountable. they are divorced from reality. health care is not a statistic. it's not a formula. it's not uniform. it's not cookie cutter. it's personal. it's individual. it's distinct. every patient is different. this is why patients along with their doctors need to be put in charge of their health care. what ipad would essentially do

is ration health care. it would take control away from patients. the other side says, hey, no. not so fast. congress can override them. but that's only if the supermajority vote. we have seen this movie before, it never ends well. seniors will suffer the consequences. medicare is more than a program. medicare is a promise. seniors, they have worked hard paid their taxes, they planned on medicare throughout their working lives and now that they are retired, it is something that they deserve a secure retirement. it needs to be there just like it has been for our parents. think about what a member of congress will do. this board of un-elected bureaucrats will say we are cutting medicare x y and z ways to these providers for medicare which denies sources to seniors and do it according to this formula in law, if congress doesn't like it, then the law says congress has to go cut medicare somewhere else and

overturn this ruling with a 3/5 supermajority vote in the house and senate. as if that would ever happen. so all this thing has done is designed to basically go around congress, go around the laws, and have bureaucrats, un-elected, unaccountable, ration care for our seniors. this is wrong. it's undemocratic. it does in the fit with our constitution. and we think it ought to be repealed. that's why we are bringing this bill to the house and that's why i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: the real purpose of this bill at this time indeed is to take a further effort to repeal a.c.a. that's really what this is about at this particular moment.

so the republican leadership is yet again taking aim at a.c.a. 1190 would repeal the independent payment advisory board, ipad. -- ipab. this would be the 59th vote to repeal or undermine a.c.a. since it passed we have seen the clowest growth in health care prices over any period of that length in nearly 50 years. growth in per enrollee health care spending across both the public and private sectors has been controlled. the lowest of three slowest years of growth in real per capita health expenditures on record were 2011 2012, and 2013. the a.c.a., in essence has changed the health care cost landscape.

keeping cost increases down and keeping -- helping at least to keep families out of debt. while we know the medicare delivery system reforms have been working to deliver value and lower cost, the ipab was created as a backstop, a backstop only to come into effect if other efforts weren't successful. this should be clear. ipab only comes into being if delivery system reforms aren't doing their job to manage medicare. according to the c.b.o., medicare growth rates are projected to remain beneath ipab targets throughout the entire budget window. thereby not triggering the board's provisions until 2024. i think when you subtract 2015

from 2024 you get nine years. so here we are on this date at this time nine years according to c.b.o. before the provisions would come into effect asking this congress to repeal the ipab provision. if the a.c.a.'s delivery system efforts continue to be successful ipab may never even need to be constituted. it is specifically prohibited from cutting benefits or raising costs on seniors. what ipab can do however, is to make recommendations to go after overpayments, go after fraud and abuse and try to improve, if needed, the way there's reform

of the delivery system. ipab will not take away medicare benefits. it will not shift cost to seniors. so if we in congress are doing our job as stewards of medicare we can manage cost growth while protecting benefits on the front end. in the event ipab makes recommendations congress always has the ability to disapprove or modify them. if we do our job, we won't need ipab. if we fail to do our job, ipab will prod us to action nine years from now or perhaps even later. let me talk a few words about the offset. it's a significant reduction of funding for the prevention in public health fund. so while the republicans so far have come forth with their proposals, that are never paid

for, this time they have decided to have a pay for, but it would cut by half or more than that the current funding for the prevention and public health fund. that fund was established in the a.c.a. to provide expanded and sustained national investments in prevention in public health and will provide $900 million this year alone for intervention that is will reduce smoking, tackle heart disease and help improve prenatal outcomes. i have a listing of what it's meant for michigan. just as one example. $3.5 million for state health department efforts to prevent obesity and diabetes. $3. million to address chronic disease risk factors among african-americans, american indians, latinos, and other

minorities. $3.3 million for community transformation grants in central michigan to address heart disease prevention and diabetes. and almost $3 million for tobacco use prevention. so here we are at long last the republicans come forth with a pay for and they are paying for something that really, really matters. we have in front of us a statement of executive policy administration policy, and i ask that the -- it be placed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: it just repeats some of the points that i have made so i'll leave it just to be entered into the record. therefore i will now say that we should not vote for this legislation. it would repeal a part of a.c.a.

designed to help keep health care costs under control. and so importantly it would cut critical public health and prevention funding. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield four minutes to the author of the legislation, the distinguished gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe. four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman is recognized. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: i rise as a proud sponsor of the protecting seniors access to medicare act. this bipartisan legislation which introduced with my colleague linda sanchez, would repeal the independent payment advisory board or ipab. created by the affordable care act, this panel of 15 unaccountable, un-elected bureaucrats exist to cut medicare spending to meet arbitrary budgets and have given enormous powers to do so. listen to this carefully.

peter orzag, president obama's former budget director has noted, ipab represents the single biggest yielding of power to an independent entity since the creation of the federal reserve. let me repeat that of the the single biggest yielding of power to an independent entity since the creation of the federal reserve. mr. speaker, we just spent in a bipartisan way three years working through s.g.r. reform. 17 times we kicked the can down the road so our seniors wouldn't be denied access to care. this bill is basically s.g.r. on steroids. it trumps all the work we just did on s.g.r. reform. any proposal made by ipab will be considered using expedited procedures. without a 3/5 vote in the senate, congress can only modify the type of cuts proposed not the amount. so we have to do the amount. if congress doesn't act on

ipab's recommendation, the cuts will automatically go into effect. to make matters worse, the board is exempt from administrative or judicial review. and on the projections between 2024, the c.b.o. can't tell me from year to year within tens of billions of dollars what the budget deficit will be each year. i don't put a lot of stock in that. if the president does not nominate individuals to serve on the ipab board or it fails to recommend cuts when required to do so, the secretary of health, human services has the power to make the changes unilaterally. one person will make those changes for the entire contry. bye ghi that for a second. one person would have the ability to reshape a program that has 55 million enrollees. whatever you may think about the president's health care law this just isn't right. after practicing medicine for more than 30 years, i can tell

you that no two patients are the same. and the different approaches are required for different needs. ipab is blind to that effect and will ration seniors' care through access to care and through a one-size-fits-all payment policy. medicare desperately needs reform to ensure it continues to be there for current beneficiaries and the next generation but this is not the way. . we can do better. it's time to go back to the

back where they belong. mr. speaker, that's been patients and doctors. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. levin: meerbling, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, three minutes, on the health subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: yes, sir. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill. this legislation is a ghost hunt. it doesn't exist. there is no yaub. there's nobody been -- there's no ipab. there's nobody been appointed. it won't happen until 2024. the question is, why are we out here? well, we're out here because some people think that trying to control costs in health care is a bad idea. if you go back and read the medicare legislation when it was put in, the a.m.a. extracted from this congress the right to charge their usual and customary fees. and they have been driving the costs and we've been trying to control it wall kinds of mechanisms all the way through -- control it all kinds of mechanisms all the way through. we've actually extended the life of medicare to 30 -- 2030. and we're spending right now

17% of our gross domestic product. when i came to this congress it was about 13% or 12%. it's only gone up. we have not been able to do it ourselves. so the creators of this bill said let's put something in on the outside that can give us some suggestions. now, when we had simpson-boles -- and i know the chairman of the ways and means committee thought the simpson-boles commission was a good idea. what happened after it was brought out in public? nothing. we ignored it. the reasons for ipab is to put the pressure on the congress to act to control costs, and if you don't care about cost, and i guess republicans don't understand there are 10,000 people coming onto social security every single day. that's 3 1/2 million people. the numbers are going up. the costs are going to go up. people are going to run around here saying we got to cut

benefits, we got to shift the cost to the old people, we got to do all this. the ipab was a way to force the congress to face the consequences of their own inaction. you're correct, dr. roe. we spent 16 years kicking the can down the road on this issue of s.g.r. that was again an attempt to control costs. it never worked. it was ill-conceived in the beginning. this is an issue where there's some really muscle in it, and people are afraid of that. they're afraid of it nine years out because they know how the congress does. this is just another way to try to undercut and make medicare and a.c.a. not work. now mr. levin pointed out the other thing that's important and that is the place they look for the money is to go to community health. health departments. nobody needs health departments. why do you need people looking

at restaurants to see if they're safe to go into or look at the water supply or look what's going on in the sewage, you don't need this stuff. this $7 billion they're going to grab here is straight out of the health departments of our country. every one of your counties is going to be facing the impact of this. mr. levin: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcdermott: the only thing i think one can say is that it's a bad idea to get rid of some muscle to force us to look at costs, but it's worse to pay for it by taking money away from health departments. they're the ones that always get cut. who wants inspectors? well, we don't like regulations, on the other side. you know it's regulations that's ruining america. if we -- we got to get them regulations out of -- you don't want regulations in restaurants? you don't want them enforced? then take $7 billion away from it and see what kind of restaurant problems you start to have. we've already seen.

milwaukee had -- i forgotten the name of the organism that was in the water supply in milwaukee. that is a health problem that's dealt with by the actual health department in the county and we're taking $7 billion to pay for this badly constructed idea. thank you. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker i spent going on four decades taking care of patients in our rural east tennessee, and i saw access becoming more and more and more of a problem. and it is a serious issue now as medicare costs have gone up and up and up. i have a mother who's almost 93. it's a difficult time affording her health care and other needs that she has. one of the things i'm very

concerned with, as mr. mcdermott said dr. mcdermott said, we have 10,000 seniors a day getting onto that program. we need to leave those decisions to doctors and patients, not to bureaucrats. let me just give you a little information. there is a panel in england, national institutes of clinical excellence, i believe what it is and the royal college of surgeons talked about the other day, they noticed over 75, almost nobody got operated on for breast cancer. almost nobody over 75 got a gal bladder operation. almost -- gall bladder operation. almost nobody over 75 got a knee fix. that's problem. and that's the path we're going down if we don't stop this nonsense. there is an article by the new england journal of medicine published in 2011 and i recommend you read it.

25 years back. this particular author wasn't for ipab or against it. he just analyzed it. 21 of those 25 years ipab would have kicked in, meaning those cuts would have happened, and i can tell you this right now our seniors better look at this with a laser beam on it because their benefits will be cut if it goes into effect. we need to get rit of it now before it happens. with that i yield back. -- we need to get rid of it now before it happens. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez, a very active member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. sanchez: thank you for let me talk about this. i'm the democratic lead on this bill along with congressman phil roe, and i'm proud of the bipartisan we've done with

ipab, independent payment advisory board. i proudly voted for the a.c.a. and i think time has shown the law has worked. the a.c.a. has lowered health care costs, preventive disease and helped cures. i believe there are certain areas for improvement in the a.c.a. and i'm committed to working in a bipartisan manner to solve these issues and provide our constituents with the world-class health care that they deserve. the a.c.a. is a good law and a few small tweaks can make it stronger and that's why i decided to reach across the aisle to work with congressman roe on this legislation. repealing ipab is not the exclusive purview of the republican party and it is a bipartisan effort. unfortunately, much like the last time congress considered ipab repeal in 2012 an unpalatable pay-for undermined the bipartisan support for a deal. i know congressman roe has worked tirelessly to avoid

repeating the pay-for battle that we had back in 2012 in order to retain democratic support. despite these efforts, republican leadership has chosen to draw from the prevention and public health fund to pay for h.r. 1190, and this is something i simply cannot support and it's with great disappointment that i must cast my vote against h.r. 1190. i truly believe that repealing ipab is the right thing to do, but i cannot support gutting a great provision in the a.c.a. to get rid of a bad one. the prevention in public health fund is an unprecedented investment in public health to prevent costly and life-threatening diseases. the fund has invested nearly $5.25 billion to states, cities and communities to keep our constituents healthy and safe before they need costly, long-term care to manage their illnesses. the fund also exists to prevent stroke cancer, tobacco use and obesity while also funding

vital childhood immunization programs and invests in detecting, tracking and responding to infectious diseases. county public health departments rely on this fund to serve their constituents, and i know my home state of california has received over $195 million thus far. despite all of this, republican leadership has decided to take approximately $8.85 billion from the fund, which actually helps lower the cost of health care through prevention eliminating the need ironically, for ipab in the first place. in closing i, again, want to thank congressman roe and the 235 bipartisan co-sponsors for their hard work. i'm disappointed that i must vote against my own bill because i know the underlying policy is good policy but i cannot vote for something that drains an essential fund from the a.c.a. i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields.

the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, let me inquire as to the time allotment remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 1 1/2 remaining. mr. ryan: i'll yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio mr. wenstrup. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. wenstrup: well, thank you mr. speaker. let me just take a couple of minutes and explain why the plearns fear the independent payment advisory board -- americans fear the independent payment advisory board. because as we stand here today i tell you i'm a physician. what's already taking place with private insurances with these peer reviews, i recommend an m.r.i. with that patient and that afternoon i get on the phone. this woman says i've had a problem for 10 years. i had cortisone injections, physical therapy, blah blah, blah. you need an m.r.i. i've only seen her once. i say to the gentleman on the phone, how many times have you seen her? none. i said what state do you have a license to practice in?

not ohio, which is where we were. and so i said, tell me your specialty. my specialty is food and ankle. this woman was in for a foot problem. he said i'm an emergency room doctor. then you'd refer her to a specialist which is where she is today. i won't let her get an m.r.i. i hope this has quality service. i told the patient if she would go to her h.r. director and say we are going to drop your insurance because you are not letting the patient get the care. we got it. i knew what was wrong once i got the m.r.i. requested. imagine having that type of a discussion with the independent payment advisory board if they pick up their phone, will they have a conversation with you about the patient? this is a problem. this is what americans are fearing today, and this is why the independent payment advisory board should go away. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields.

the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: mr. chairman, are you ready to close? because mr. pallone needs to take over. i've spoken, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i'm going to follow suit. it's a great bill. we should pass it. ipab is a bad agency. should never have been created in the first place. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker i rise today in support of h.r. 1190, the protecting seniors' access to medicare act of 2015. mr. speaker, the bill before us today repeals the independent payment advisory board, ipab, one of the most ominous provisions in the sweeping overhaul of health care known as the affordable care act. the stated purpose of ipab is

to reduce medicare's per capita growth rate. the board is to be made up of 15 unelected unaccountable bureaucrats -- by the way can't have a majority of docs on the board -- who will be paid $165,300 a year to serve six-year terms on the board. this panel of 15 unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats is tasked with reducing medicare costs through arbitrary cuts to providers. . if medicare growth goes over an arbitrary target, the board is required to submit a proposal to congress that would reduce medicare's growth rate. these recommendations will automatically go into effect unless congress passes legislation that would achieve the same amount of savings in order to do so, congress must meet an almost impossible

deadline and clear an almost unsurmountable legislative hurdle. the board has the power to make binding decision abouts medicare policy with no requirement for public comment prior to issuing its recommendations. individuals and providers will have no recourse against the board. -- board because its decision can not be repealed or reviewed. in other words the board will make major health care legislation essentially outside the usual legislative process. the board is also limited in how it can achieve the required savings. therefore ipab's recommendations will be restricted to cutting provider reimbursements. in many cases, medicare already reimburses below the cost of providing services. we are already seeing doctors refusing to take new medicare patients. or medicare patients at all. because they cannot afford to

absorb the losses. any additional provider cuts will lead to fewer medicare providers. and that means that beneficiary access will suffer. seniors will be forced to wait in longer and longer lines to be seen by an ever shrinking pool of providers. or have to travel longer and longer distances to find a provider willing to see them. clearly medicare growth is on an out-of-control trajectory that endangers the solvency and continued existence of the program. ipab, however is not the solution. breek, the house voted 2 -- mr. speaker, the house voted 223-181 in 2012 to repeal the independent payment advisory board. today, h.r. 119 o 0, protecting seniors' access to medicare act of 2015 enjoys the support of 235 of our house colleagues who have signed on as co-sponsors.

the time has come for the house to once again repeal this flawed policy. i urge all of my colleagues to support h.r. 1190. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 1190. this bill would repeal the independent payment advisory board or ipab, and pay for it by drastically reducing our investment in prevention in public health. mr. speaker, i do not support ipab. i oppose independent commissions playing a legislative role other than on a recommended basis. it's not the just of an independent commission to make decisions on health care policy for medicare beneficiaries. congress simply must stop ceding legislative power to outside bodies. however, ipab remains an insignificant provision from the affordable care act as it has

not even been convened. because of how well other provisions of the a.c.a. are working medicare cost growth rates are projected to remain beneath ipab targets through the entire budget window thereby not triggering the ipab provisions until 2024 at the earliest. that said, i urge this house to oppose h.r. 1190 which would pay for ipab repeal by effectively gutting the affordable care act's prevention and public health fund. an incredibly significant provision from the a.c.a. the prevention and public health fund is a mechanism to provide expanded and sustained national investments in prevention and public health, to improve health outcomes, and to enhance health care quality. the fund has worked to reduce tobacco use, promote community prevention, and use of preventive services, and combat health care associated infections. this year the fund will invest nearly $1 billion in programs that will benefit every state.

and these dollars go to proven effective ways to keep americans healthier and more productive. in my home state of new jersey, we have received more than $47.5 million for prevention and public health fund programs. this bill would walk back these and other important strides we have made in public health and prevention. this bill is yet another republican attempt to attack and undermine the affordable care act. i urge my colleagues to vote no. i would reserve the balance of my time and, mr. speaker, i would like to have mr. sarbanes of maryland manage the remainder of the energy and commerce time on the democratic side. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from maryland will manage the time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker at this time i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman, mr. bilirakis, a valued member of our health subcommittee, such time as he may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you mr. chairman, appreciate it so much. i rise today in support of h.r. 1190, the protecting seniors' access to medicare act. the president's health care law includes -- included the creation of the independent payment advisory board or ipab. despite its name ipab is the opposite of independent, mr. speaker. ipab is a group of 15 un-elected members unaccountable to the american people. ipab's job is to control medicare spending. that sounds nice. but they only have one way to do that. by cutting reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals. seniors rely on medicare as well as the doctors who will see them. if this un-elected unaccountable board cuts reimbursement rates doctors will stop seeing medicare patients.

that is bad for the 180,000 seniors in my district. support this bill and let's abolish ipab. i look forward to a bipartisan vote in support of h.r. 1190. thank you. i yield back mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm opposed to this legislation, h.r. 1190, for reasons i will detail in a moment. at this time i would yield the minority whip, mr. hoyer from maryland, as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: the gentleman indicated there were 235 people for this bill in this house. i just observed a few minutes ago there are 240 people for export-import bank. if you brought this bill to the floor, i would hope the gentleman would urge his side when six 60 of his folks are for

it you all of ours are for it, bring that bill to the floor because it's about jobs. having said that, and i want to acknowledge that i'm a good friend and have great respect for the sponsor of this bill dr. roe. he and i have worked together and the dangers caused the eating of peanuts. he is a good doctor. he's a good person. i have to disagree on this bill, however. this will be the 60th vote over the next two days, four days on the repeal of the affordable care act. we obviously have a difference of opinion on the affordable care act. i believe it's working. i believe that millions of people are covered by insurance because of the affordable care act. unless of children are covered under their parents' policy. millions of seniors are paying

less for prescription drugs. millions of people with a pre-existing condition have the confidence they can get insurance. the bill we are waiting today and voting on next week would repeal the independent payment advisory board or ipab, as it's referred to. now, i was disappointed that reference to bureaucrats. used as an entthet, unfortunately, not a scripive term. the fact of the matter is these folks are appointed and they make recommendations. they make recommendations to the congress of the united states. and the congress of the united states can reject them. and the president of the united states if the congress passes legislation to set that aside can consider it as well. ipab develops to contain the rate of growth of spending.

the board has been formed. no members appointed yet. yet republicans are asking taxpayers to spend seven plus billion dollars over the next 10 years to eliminate it. it's not that it has acted badly. it's not that they are irresponsible. there are no people appointed to this board yet. the affordable care act has slowed the growth of health care costs to its lowest rate in 50 years. that helps every american. whether they are covered by the affordable care act or private employer insurance or self-insured. as a result, c.b.o. predicts that action by the board would not even be triggered until 2024. but the cuts to the prevention fund would act now. republicans are paying for this bill by cutting funding for disease prevention and public health.

now, even then c.b.o. reports that this bill still bends the health care costs curve in the wrong direction eefer the long run -- over the long run. today as has been observed, we passed another bill. that one was without offsets. that will create an additional $24 billion deficit. mr. speaker, the house has a choice. it can continue the same old partisan attacks against the affordable health care, and add billions to the deficit undermine prevention and public health, bringing deficit finance tax cuts passed by this republican-led congress up to $610.7 billion. since january. somebody is going to pay that bill.

because we're not. my generation is not being asked to pay for it. $610.7 billion. it could reject, of course, the politics as usual. and instead work together in a bipartisan way to focus on creating jobs, lowering the deficit, and investing in competitive economy. you heard the sponsor of this bill saying, i cannot support it. the gentlelady from california. because the proponents of this bill would rather attack the affordable care act than they would to pass this bill. they want to pass this bill. but their priority is undermining the affordable care act. which is why they didn't work with congressman sanchez and others who agree with them on

the policy. i'd have to disagree with them on the policy but they even put people who agree with them in a place where they cannot support the undermining of the affordable care act and preventive health in america. let's choose to work together and do what american people are asking us to do. not undermine the critical health care reforms that are containing costs increasing access and improving quality. that's why i oppose the medical device tax bill, and that's why i'm urging my colleagues to defeat this one as well. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. i would say to the distinguished minority leader -- whip, i do support ex-im bank and urge my leaders to act on it. so we are together on support of

that. let me just mention a few things. correct the record. number one, we had secretary burwell before the committee earlier this year and dr. bucshon on our health subcommittee asked her specifically when the ipab cuts would begin to take effect. and she said in 2019. in fact, the president's own budget request would begin the cuts of ipab in 2019. you don't have to have the members of the ipab board appointed in order to have the cuts. the law ipab designates the secretary of h.h.s. with the authority to make those cuts. and to overcome those cuts, you really have to have 2/3 votes in the house and senate with commensurate cuts from somewhere else in medicare to replace

those cuts that you're overcoming. so this is a board that has tremendous power, that will deal with provider payments, and cuts. now, we just dealt with the s.g.r., sustainable growth rate, in a bipartisan manner. we acted to repeal the sustainable growth rate that required cuts to provider payments for seniors. . and it was supported overwhelmingly. but if you like the s.g.r., you'll love ipab. this is the s.g.r. on steroids. and it will be very difficult to overcome these 15 unelected bureaucrats, experiod of times, whatever you want to call -- experts, whatever you want to call them. can't be a majority of docs, by the way, or the secretary, whoever makes the recommendations. now, we used the prevention fund as a pay-for, taking funds

from the prevention fund until 2025 to reach the $7.1 billion but this prevention fund gets $2 billion every year, beginning this year and every year, add inif i night up. -- ad infinitum. so 2030 2030 2041. every year the secretary gets $2 billion to use at her sole discretion. she doesn't have to use it for public health purposes. she has sole discretion on how this money is used. would you like to know some of the things she's used the money for so far? well $450 million was used for the navigator program in implementing the affordable care act. $400,000 has been used for pickle ball. $235,000 for massage therapy,

kickboxing and zumba classes, whatever that is. $7.5 million on promoting free pet newt you aring. neutering. help lobby for the passage of soda gas. fast food, small businesses, bike clubs. rather than spend money on questionable projects, lobbying campaigns for higher taxes and for the you know, the affordable care act media campaigns, h.r. 1190 would rather use these funds to protect medicare, seniors and their health care because the money for the operation of ipab, for these salaries, for their travel, for all their expenses comes directly out of the trust fund moneys for seniors, used for seniors and those with disabilities. that's wrong. we're constrange. we're not repealing -- we're

constraining. we're not repealing the prevention fund to pay for this but we need to constrain the use of that fund and good public health policy ought to come before the congress, not be at the sole discretion of this one secretary or czar, whatever you want to -- however you might term it. so mr. speaker, i'm pleased to speak in favor of this legislation 1190, and urge the members to support it, and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. sarbanes: thank you mr. speaker. as i indicated at the outset, i'm opposed to h.r. 1190. if the -- if the republican appetite for the repeal of the independent payment advisory board was based solely on its merits, i might be a little bit

more charitable about their bringing this bill to the floor because as you've seen in the speakers from our side, there's a legitimate debate on the merits. i have some concerns myself about the ipab. but unfortunately i think where this is coming from is this impulse this kind of ceaseless impulse to undermine and dismantle the affordable care act. and the evidence of that is in the pay-for. why would you want to go undermine the public health portion really a significant commitment that was made through the a.c.a. to begin to turn our health care system towards prevention towards public health? frankly, we need as many resources that we can muster to put behind that and the pay for

for this repeal would take $8.85 billion that have been set aside for the prevention in public health fund, away from that fund and undermine all of the various activities that are being funded by it. i don't know why our colleagues on the other side cannot restrain themselves when it comes to the shiny object of repealing the a.c.a. when we now have plenty of evidence at our fingertips as to the positive impact that crarecare is having. three million young people can stay on their parents' health coverage. millions more benefiting from the health exchanges across the

country. seniors have less anxiety falling into the so-called doughnut hole under the part d prescription benefit program because under the a.c.a. we're beginning to close that doughnut hole. insurance companies barred from discriminating against people based on a pre-existing condition. preventive care screening for our seniors under the medicare program, tests and other screenings they used to have to come out of pocket for, now that's completely covered as a result of the affordable care act. you ask the average person out there about any of those things i just mentioned and they say, why would we want to give these up? these are important to our health. important to the strength of our families and our communities and yet our colleagues just don't seem to be able to help themselves when it comes to wanting to attack the affordable care act.

furthermore if you view this ipab as an important mechanism in terms of controlling cost, as already been said, the trigger mechanism would not kick in for a number of years here anyway. in other words, the costs are being controlled currently, and so that basis for sort of the urgency of it now in terms of bringing these other pay-fors into the mix doesn't make a whole lot of sense. and let's -- let's acknowledge that one of the reasons that that trigger isn't going to come anytime soon is because, again, the affordable care act is working when it comes to controlling costs. so that's the other side of the discussion. the affordable care act is working in terms of providing more coverage and improving treatment and management of chronic care on the one hand and the evidence is it's also reducing costs on the other hand. so it makes sense to try to

preserve that, and i think the public health fund and prevention fund is a critical piece. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation for the reasons enumerated, and i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: i'm prepared to close. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. sarbanes: as i close, mr. speaker, i just want to read into the record so we have this information. a couple of observations from some of the groups out there that are most engaged in prevention and public health across the country and the perspective that they bring in terms of this offset of undermining and depleting the prevention and public health fund. the american lung association said using money from the prevention fund as a pay-for

would have a devastating affect on our nation's -- effect on our nation's public health. american heart association. cardiac disease is the leading cause of death in the united states and is our most costly disease. the fund supports evidence-based initiatives likewise woman a preventive health services program that provides lifestyle programs and health counseling that helps low income and underinsured women prevent delay or control heart disease and stroke. the american cancer society cancer network observes that the breast and cervical prevention program is funded in 3 is states through the fund and there are others that observe march of dimes, tobacco-free kids. it makes no sense to raid the prevention and public health fund to support this repeal of the ipab.

and for those reasons and the others that have been presented here today, i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 1190, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: did the gentleman yield back? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yielded. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm prepared to close. while the programs enumerated by the gentleman are laudable there's nothing in the prevention and public health fund that guarantees that these will be funded or that they're priorities. it is at the sole discretion of the secretary as to what she would allocate funds for and rightly these kinds of funds should come before congress and congress should approve these kinds of public health funds. i might mention that c.b.o.

estimates that h.r. 1190, the protecting senior access to medicare act, as amended would have no budgetary affect on fiscal years 2015 and 2016. and reduce the direct spending by $45 million over 2016 to 2025 period. so with that mr. speaker, i urge members to support h.r. 1190, the protecting scenes yors' access to medicare act -- seniors' access to medicare act, and repeal ipab and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 319, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to 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 passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, 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. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpe does the gentleman rise for recognition -- the gentleman from maine, sorry? without objection, the gentleman is recognizedor one minute. mr. poliquin: mr. speaker, obama's medical deviceax is killing our economy. guilford has been a family-run business for nearly 100 years. 450 hardworking mainers produce 3 1/2 million popsicle sticks per day.

the company also manufacturers more tongue depressors and medical swabs than anywhere in the western hemisphere. the only competitor is located in china. puritan companies pays nearly $250000 per year in medical device tax. as a result, they can't afford to buy new equipment and to manufacture new medical products and to hire more workers. it's not right for this obamacare tax to export our manufacturing jobs to china. it's not right for this punitive x to smother medical innovaon that helps americans live longer and healthier lives. today, let's all ban together republicans and democrats in the house to get rid of this horrible tax. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to addre the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. > i commemorate the 150th anniversary of the oldest celebration honoring the ending of slavery in texas and the u.s. the observance of june 19 as emancipation day for blacks has spread across the united states and beyond as a symbol to reflect how far we have come. as temperature as commemorates june 19, i would like to acknowledge some of the public celebrations that will take place. in grand prarie, they are going to celebrate the holiday with a fish fry and city of for the worth there will be a parade and celebration and gathering at the fort worth water garden.

and i want to acknowledge my good friend who has worked very hard to bring so much recognition around the city of fo rmp t worth. as we mark 150 years, let us commemorate new achievements giving us a chance to reflect on our roots and educate the next generation about such a historic day. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lamalfa: i rise today in support of h.r. 1190, protecting seniors access to medicare act, which repeals obamacare's arbitrary independent payment advisory board known as ipab. one of the most concerning and

troubling aspects is its unprecedented shift to bureaucrats. the board is no exception to that, entrusting 15 unlegitimated bureaucrats with across-the-board power to reduce medicare spending and determine which treatments are necessary only serves to jeopardize access to quality care for our seniors. one size fits all will not fix our health care system but look at long-term solutions to make medicare more sustainable to protect access to care now and for future generations. this bill brings us one stop closer to putting washington out of the way and americans in charming of their health care decisions. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. this week, we mark three years

since president obama created the deferred action for childhood arrival or daca. he did this in response to congress' failure to pass the dream act and help children of undocumented immigrants help stay here and help build a better future for america. children who probably no no language other than english, know no country other than america. for many of these immigrants brought here as children, america is the only home they have ever known. they love this country. and they deserve a chance to stay and contribute to our nation's future. president obama announced an expanded daca last year, along with the program that deals with parents of such children, to help the immigrant parents of american citizens and legal residents. unfortunately, a partisan

lawsuit has held up their implementation and republicans have now voted three times to end this opportunity for children of immigrants. they would split families apart. if my republican friends wish to change our immigration policies they have a perfect vehicle, mr. speaker, for doing so. a comprehensive immigration reform bill. supported, in my opinion, by a majority of the house of representatives. let's bring such a bill to the so we can fix our broken immigration system and create a pathway to citizenship for these dreamers and others who have been living and working here for almost all their lives. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise

and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following request. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. clyburn and mr. rodney davis of illinois and mr. jolly of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from georgia mr. loudermilk is recognized for 60 minutes of the designee of the majority leader. mr. loudermilk: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. loudermilk: thank you, mr. speaker, as others have done

today when i have come before this body, has been to recognize someone who has done something significant in my district or to speak about a bill whether i was for it or against it or a piece of policy or an issue. but today i don't have preprepared remarks. i just wanted to remind those of us that are here of why we are here. why are those of us who attend session here in this body day in and day out, what is the purpose for us being here. before i begin the remarks, mr. speaker, i would like to personally extend my thoughts and prayers on behalf of myself and my family as well as those of the 11th congressional district of georgia to those victims of the horrific attack that happened last evening in charleston, south carolina. i'm a member of the committee on homeland security as well as a

special task force on foreign fighters and as part of that, we spend a lot of time studying terrorism and the terrorist attacks against this nation. and one thing that i have seen that is consistent about these terrorist attacks is that they are attacking us not because of who we are. most of them don't even know our names. they may not know our families or what we believe. and may as well be the case in charleston as i know it was in garland texas. but what i have seen in these attacks of terrorism, they are attacks about what we stand for, and that's freedom. and garland, texas it was an attack on the first amendment our freedom of speech. last night, it was an attack on the most fundamental right that our founding fathers gave to us, and that is our freedom of religion, a right that was given

to us by god and cannot be taken away. i have had the opportunity since being in congress a short amount of time -- and it's more than opportunity, it's really a privilege to take constituents as they come to the capitol here and take them on tours. and as i walk down the halls of this building and i point out the status of thomas jefferson that we have right outside the chamber or as i stand here, the image of moses looking at me as he is looking over the chamber and i look at the statues of our founding fathers, they have left us reminders of why we are here. and getting close to the anniversary of the birth of this nation, i think it is important that we as a body are reminded of why we are here. i just want to speak briefly about two phrases that you can

find in washington, d.c. that reminds us of not only why we are here but what it takes to preserve the freedom that we have been given. mr. speaker, as i walk down the aisle to come to this podium, i just glanced up above the rostrum where you are standing and i see four words, in god we trust. that's one of the phrases that my eyes often go to as i'm sitting in this chamber as we are debating bills. and i reflect back on why do we have that phrase here. well, it also goes back to another phrase that i have seen recently as i was taking a tour of the mall outside this building where we have the museums, the heritage of this nation, but also a building there, the national archives, that inside of that building are the documents of freedom, the most hallowed of all of our

freedom the constitution and the bill of rights and the one that is most requested by visitors to this nation's capital to see and that is the declaration of independence. and in that declaration, our founding fathers expressed what they believe that this nation would be one day. it was their vision, it was their faith and philosophy about this new nation. they were revolutionary ideas they brought forth because it was the first time in the history of mankind that a government existed where the emphasis was on the freedom of the individual. empowering the individual. every other government in the face of the earth before this have focused its attention on a group, a collective whether it was by race or religion or aristocracy or founding line. our founding fathers said if we empower the individual and

recognize the rights we have given them and our nation as a whole would he can sell. they believed that these rights were important to be protected. the right to speak freely. the right to have ideas. the right to pursue happiness. the right to pursue commerce and the right to worship without fear of oppression from the government. these were revolutionary ideas. but they also knew that they had a challenge. because of these revolutionary ideas, they knew they would not be well accepted by other governments because it threatened the power base of those governments and they knew they would have to take on the most powerful military force in the history of the entire world if they were going to see these ideas come to fruition. think about that. this rag-tag soldiers would have

to take on the most military powerful force in the world. it was an impossible task and they understood that. but mr. speaker, that phrase that is in marble above the rostrum reflects one of those two phrases. our founding fathers wrote these words, and in support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mute tallly pledge our lives fortune and say credit trust. if we are going to preserve this freedom that they were fighting for. now, outside the national archives where that declaration is still on display, the words eternal vidge lance is the price of -- vigilance is the price of

freedom. that's the second phrase we must be reminded of today. the second part of that last line of the declaration of independence says we pledge to each other our lives, for the tunes and sacred trust. it is held and protected at a price. just recently, i was given the opportunity to travel to the beaches of normandy and i stood up on the sands of omaha beach and i started reflecting upon the price that was paid that day for our freedom and our liberty. i brought back a little bit of the sand from the beach as my dad was in world war ii and served in that theater. and as i sat at home, i was thinking what if the sands could speak, what would they say? what would they tell us in this

august body here? what would they tell the people of our nation if that sand could speak. you see that sand absorbed the blood of american patriots who had the courage to step off of those higins boats into -- higgins boats into the line of fire, why would they do that? that sand absorbed the blood of these patriots. and the sand may be able to tell us the last words that were spoken by some of these who drew their last breath, after giving their very lives for our freedom. would they tell the name of a father or mother as they cried out their last cry of hope? would they tell the name of the sweetheart which they will never embrace or a brother or sister or a child that they will never

see? but as i started thinking about it i started realizing that sand held the d.n.a. of these soldiers. not just the d.n.a. of soldiers but the d.n.a. of our entire nation. and i believe today, mr. speaker, that if that sand could tell us anything today in this body is to remember what they died for. and i believe that that sand could speak today, that sand would tell us these words this is why we died because we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. to ensure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

as we are nearing that celebration, we celebrate 239 years of the birth of this nation. i call upon the members of this body to once again reflect on why we are here and that's to preserve freedom. mr. speaker, i thank you for this opportunity to speak and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell for 30 minutes. mr. russell: thank you, mr. speaker. in the last couple of weeks america has asked, what is our strategy to defeat isis? and what is the president's plan to prevent the spread of barbarism in syria and iraq? for all of our advancement in

self-governance, the rule of law and the betterment of people's lives, the world stands in shock at beheadings crucifixions, sexual enslavement and human suffering as a way of governance could exist on earth today. as the world has watched in horror, it has also looked to america where america leads nations stand shoulder to shoulder. where america is absent, tyranny takes its chances and rears its ugly head. but who would have thought barbarity would emerge? last year the president -- since last year has been unable to articulate his strategy to aid our ally in iraq. exo combat isis -- to combat isis. as a combat veteran of iraq that has had to watch my american and iraqi friends die,

that has had to handle the flesh and blood of battle that has had to do terrible things to destroy enemies, that has had to watch the good people of iraq suffer in absence of effective government this is deeply personal. it is personal because i have lived among the sunni arab. i have celebrated his victories , his wedings, his birthdays -- weddings his birthdays and his accomplishments. i have mourned his close -- as close iraqi friends have died to acts of terror mourned when iraq's educated, intelligent and free people have been expunged. the president's refusal to negotiate a status of forces agreement and decision to abandon iraq in 2012 is largely responsible and aided isis' path to destruction in that country. we soldiers and service members who have sacrificed so much in

iraq weep. we defeated saddam's arbitrarilyy, toppled the ba'athist government -- army, toppled the ba'athist government fought an insurgency and stood shoulder to shoulder with disenfranchised sunnis and kurds to restore control to iraq's government. we turned the country around with a military pause. the president used that pause for abandonment. and political expediencesy. -- expediency. where we sacrificed he quit. i speak for so many of the iraq veterans when i say, mr. president, you have hurt us deeply. you have torn a hole within us, we are at a loss to see the state of iraq today. now as we ask what can be done, we see a strategy offered by this administration. i heard it yesterday in the house armed services committee

when secretary of defense carter and chairman of the joint chiefs dempsey attempted to articulate it. i left more confused than when i entered. the president is offering a plan without vision or conviction. indeed, secretary carter could not even name it. calling it and i quote, so the called nine line strategy, end quote. so-called? do we not even have enough conviction to call the strategy some name? is it our strategy or not? are we so unsure of it that we do not even know what to call it? and then we were informed of the, and i quote, lily pad strategy, end quote. i suppose that is the one that makes us look like a bunch of to dos. -- toads. the nine lines, if we decide toually call it that this strategy -- to actually call it that, this strategy when taken

together is mostly passive and defensive. in my 21 years oftary infantry service i've never seen enemies defeated by defense. while passive measures are important, they are only complimentary. the president is looking for nations in the middle east to lead. middle eastern countries are looking to the united states for leadership. we cannot approach this problem like pushing a strand of wet spaghetti. grab it by the front and it will go where you want it to go. if iraq and syria were a crime-ridden neighborhood, this nine line strategy would be like relying on neighborhood watches to physically fight criminals and restore leadership of the town. the mayor and police would then tell them, well, if you clean up your neighborhood, then we will come and provide the protection that you require. if only life worked that way.

the military can provide pauses, but we cannot provide an iraqi collapse when the president pulls out all the protection necessary to sustain a government. if the united states is not complitted with a diplomatic -- committed with a diplomatic, economic and informational solution, all the heroics exerted by our men and women in uniform to provide a window will be squandered once again if we abandon our gains. secretary carter and chairman of the joint chiefs dempsey spoke of trying to find people willing to fight in iraq. there are plenty of them. the problem is they are sunni arabs and kurds. they do not wish to live under isis. yet we will not organize them into a sunni arab and sunni kurd federation that would actually stand a chance of success and would be a deadly blow to the objectives of isis. they want to govern themselves because baghdad cannot include

them. they do not wish to live under isis's barbar -- isis' barbarity and we should embrace them. in the interim, what can be done that is not passive? how about some of this. cripple raca. this town is clear that it is the center of isis power. the president's cabinet says, we are worried about collateral damage and civilian casualties. news flash the most humane thing we can do to end the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people is crip what will isis draws its strength from. destroy their infrastructure, hammer the electricity capacity of that city, destroy the bridges on their roads of ingress and egress, take away the oil refining installations that they possess and use to fund themselves with millions of dollars of illegal cash. we have the ability to rebuild those later, but isis would be diminished deeply by their

loss. the most humane thing we can do to protect civilians is defeat the barbarians costing their suffering. that is true humanity. and if the united states leads, others will stand shoulder to shoulder. mr. president we need you to lead. we hear talk about countermessaging. well here's something every american can help with. news stations, stop putting isis recruiting videos as b roll on your news casts. replace it with crosshairs and explosions of their defeat or show the world their acts of barbarity instead. stop using their images and their propaganda for furthering american news casts -- newscasts. americans, write your local news stations and tell them to stop it. iran, here's the cold reality. and its impact on isis and middle east unrest. lifting sanctions on iran will

introduce tens of billions of dollars into these war-torn nations land destabilize the entire region. mr. president, do not lift the sanctions on iran. they must show good action before we show goodwill. finally, we must go back to the drawing board on this so-called strategy of half-heartedness. using american warriors should mean backing them with the full weight and might of this republic. and, mr. president, do you not realize that our enemies hear you loud and clear when you say you will not sign the defense authorization? secretary carter, do you not realize that we are still negotiating it between both houses of congress? why do you say you support a veto when we are still in the process of its negotiation? by such actions, one thing is certainly clear, nothing is too good for the troops and nothing

is what they will get. instead lead, achieve, get an isis strategy worthy of this mighty republic. sign the defensive authorization and let's get back to our constitutional requirement to provide for our nation's defense. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. and not to a perceived viewing audience.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you mr. speaker. an interesting vote today on trade agreement and i know my friends scored that. they wanted people to vote yes because they believed, as some have said, it's about free trade. but it's a bit ironic for those who follow politics because on the one hand republicans were

being told this will allow us to force the president to keep us apprised, to give us notice of what's going on so that we can rein anything in that's not helpful to the country. i didn't have that impression of the bill. not when reading the t.p.a., not going to classified setting, i mean, i did that, i read -- read the t.p.p. most of it. having been a lawyer and a judge, prosecutor, chief justice i've litigated a lot of loopholes. there are a lot of loopholes in that t.p.p. there are loopholes in the t.p.a. but one of my democratic friends was telling me mr. speaker, that they were being told, and that the whole reason the president came up here is that by passing this trade

agreement, it's going to allow the president to get his agenda done in the next 18 months without congress being able to stop him some of my democratic friends prefer that congress have more say than that and some were not happy with the proposal at all. they also had are smart enough to know -- there are also smart enough to know a lot of american jobs will be lost because of that bill and i'm not an isolationist. i believe in free trade. but i don't believe in free reign for a president and i'm afraid that's what it would do and that's why i had to vote no once again. but it passed and now we will see if the president, if what some of my democratic friends were told is accurate, that that bill will allow the president to achieve his agenda without republicans being able

to stop him. . it appeared that way. he has enough loopholes. he can take advantage of. and plus, even without loopholes isn't required to notify us before he released anyone. he released five of the worst murderers in return for a guy that was about to be charged with desertion. the president isn't bogged down to follow the law. but if we pass one more law that makes him give us notice this time after 6 1/2 years of not keeping us apprised as the law requires, this time, i think he really, really well. and i'm impressed with the optimism. no matter how cynical you get,

never enough to catch up. sometimes i think there's merit to that. in any event there is an issue far -- even far more important issue that's about to hit this country. it could create a constitutional crisis of proportions that some of the justices on the supreme court can't imagine. but, mr. speaker i blew up the law -- this is the law. it's not an ethical requirement. i mean, having been a prosecutor -- heck, i was even court appointed to appeal a capital

murder conviction. i don't know how many here on the floor have done so. i begged the judge not to apoint me and when i got into the thousands of pages of records, i found out he had not gotten a fair trial and i fought for him before the highest court in texas and got the death penalty reversed. some clients felt like i was a pretty good lawyer. i was told i got back before i went on the bench that i got the only jury verdict against what was then the largest oil company in the world. i don't know if it was or is, that's what i was told. so i know something about practicing law. i know something about being a judge. and i know that when there was

any case in which the public would suspect that i could not be impartial, i would have to recuse myself. sometimes judges will just recuse themselves so they don't have to make a tough call. i never did that. but there are times when you have such a strong opinion about a matter, you have no business sitting on that case. now ethical requirements would insist that a judge conduct their performance as a judge in such a way that it comports with the requirements of the canons of ethics. however this isn't an ethical violation that would get you a letter from some bar president

or from somebody saying, we think you violated the ca nmp ons of ethics. this is united states law. this is the law of the land. this is part a. part b goes into some different possibilities where a judge may have to recuse him or herself. but this is it. b is like i said other examples where the judge might have to recuse himself. but a is unequivocal. any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the united states shall -- that's a shall -- shall

disqualify himself generic, male and female, in any proceeding in which his impash atlanta might reasonably be questioned. this is not model code of ethics. this is the united states law. and no one in the country including on the united states supreme court is supposed to be above the law. and as we've talked about, we have two justices that have performed same sex marriages. and in fact justice ginsburg in an article of may 18, 2015, he

is quoting from maureen dowd and her article where maureen dowd says quote, with a sly look and special emphasis on the word constitution, justice ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the constitution of the united states. now there is no question that justice ginsburg is biased prejudiced. she has her own opinion about this matter. she has had her opinion about this. that was clear in the first same-sex marriage she performed. for her not to disqualify herself is a violation of the

law of the united states. and yet we're told that justice ginsburg is not going to recues herself, that she wants to be part of a majority opinion. so what happens when someone who is disqualified from sitting on a case, sits on a case any way in order to use their partial biased position to bring about a majority opinion, it would certainly seem that that would be an illegal act. not criminal. this isn't a criminal law, but it's an illegal act for someone to violate this law. and then we also had justice

kagan in the fall of last year, september of last year, "the hill" reported that supreme court justice kagan officiated at a same-sex marriage. the ceremony in maryland for a former law clerk is the first same-sex wedding that the justice has performed. others have performed same sex weddings in the past. gay marriage, the article says, has been a divisive topic at the supreme court as it has been elsewhere in the country. the article says, the court could decide as early this month whether to take up the issue, again in the coming session this time to consider a more sweeping ruling declaring a right to same-sex marriage

across the country. ginsburg said last week unless an appeals court allows gay marriage, there is no reason for us to rush on the supreme court ruling, but they took the case up. and now we're told they're going to rule this month, by june 30 of this month. so clearly justice kagan is disqualified. she has had a profound opinion. it says if the impartiality might reasonably be questioned. there are different standards of evidence in the law. some states use different burdenens of proof. you can't have more likely than not -- if it's a group like on a jury, one more than half

preponderance of the evidence, it's more likely than not, then you find that way. probable cause is an issue that has an evidentiary requirement. you got to be probably something as likely that has occurred. preponderance of the evidence i mentioned. beyond a reasonable doubt is what most criminal courts have before you can find someone guilty. evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt. there are some courts that use a standard called clear and convincing evidence. this united states law doesn't use any of those standards. it is a very weak threshold before a judge or a justice must

disqualify themselves. they must disqualify themselves. and i hated the fact that justice scalia some years back had to disqualify himself, but he had already had an opinion expressed about -- i believe it was the pledge of allegiance. and so couldn't be sure that it wouldn't end up a 4-4 decision, which meant the ninth circuit decision would stand that struck down under god in the pledge, as i recall. but he disqualified himself. justice scalia followed 28 u.s.c. 455 and disqualified himself because his judgment his partial atlanta might reasonably be questioned -- his

impartiality. it appeared he was partial and had an opinion in the case and disqualified himself. that is in acting in accordance with the law. i keep coming back to this. it's a matter of a constitutional crisis when the highest court in the land, not merely strikes down and says our opinion is more important than moses depicted up there in the center point in this room, more important than mosses depicted in the supreme court holding the 10 commandments. the supreme court says more important than the opinions established stated by jesus christ and he quass quoting moses, a man shall leave his mother and father and the two will come together and be one

flesh and what joined together let no man put asunder. it's the law according to moses and jesus. so it's tough enough if you have a united states supreme court who back in the 1890's said this is clearly a christian nation despite what any opinions may be the evidence established, this country was established as a christian nation. and the great thing is if a nation is established a judeo christian beliefs, it allows anybody to live here and function here and to do so without impedement to their beliefs because you could be a buddhist, muslim, you can be any of those things, as long as you

aren't taking over the country, but otherwise basing it on judeo christian beliefs, we have provided more freedom for individuals than any nation in the history of the world. and yet we may have an ultimate crisis here when a court says our opinion -- says, our opinion is more important than god, if there is one, more important than moses, more important than jesus. our opinion is not only more important than those people, but it's the law of the land and it's so important that our opinion count that we are going to violate the law ourselves in order to force our opinion, clearly what it is, our opinion on the united states of america.

i don't want anybody to be prejudice against anybody else. i was sick to my stomach this morning hearing about the shooting in charleston, south carolina. this evil perpetrator killed my brothers and sisters. we are brothers and sisters in christ. skin color does not matter one bit. he killed my brothers and sisters. i hope america joins me in mourning. i know the people on both sides of the aisle do. at our prayer break fast this morning, we -- breakfast this morning we prayed and will

continue to pray for the families of those who were lost. those christians, we as christians believe as jesus told the thief, you'll be in paradise with me. we believe they're better off than any of us here in the united states, on earth. because of our beliefs, we believe they're in paradise with jesus himself with the lord. but it's the terrible wake they leave behind that is so tragic. state senator from all accounts -- senator, from all accounts a good man, not only a christian brother but a really good man, pastor, three men, six women. so our hearts go out to them. we don't want anybody to be prejudiced against anybody. but when it comes to the founding block the foundation

of any solid society, it doesn't matter what relationships exist it doesn't matter who loves or is friendses with whom -- friends with whom. as a christian i think i can love most everybody. there's a few that's kind of tough, but most everybody. some democrats over here, i love them. they're wonderful people. they're wrong on issues, but i love them. they're great folks. but when it comes to the foundation of this nation, the home a mother and a father regardless of what other relationships may exist between siblings, between anybody else, what matters is you don't destroy the central building

block. i was intrigued when the iowa supreme court back in 2009 didn't use these words but basically said, you know, there's no evidence in nature to indicate a preference of a marriage being between a man and a woman. and it was clear the people of iowa spoke, i love those folks, they were awesome, they came out and for the first time since an up or down retention vote i understand 1960 or 1962 or so, they threw out the judges that were up for re-election. because the vast majority in iowa knew that's ridiculous. nature makes very clear that you start a family whether you keep both a mother and father, things happen. there's so many of our greatest americans who have arissen from orphanages or from -- arisen

from orphanages or from single-parent homes. but still it doesn't get away from the optimum being, nature says you're best off if you have a mother and father. they can produce children. yes, you can adopt children, sure. but that's where nature comes in and says, yeah, but the optimum is a mother and a father in a home. and i know there are some who are involved in same-sex marriage, they're not able to love as i do, they hate anybody that disagrees with them. there are some that can love me, though we disagree. i hope that the continued hatred that's been growing amongst some in the same-sex community can be tamped down. by this is an issue that is foundational to any society that's going to maintain

strength, going to maintain viability for a long time into the future rather than show -- we just crossed another smilestone on the way to the dust bin -- milestone on the way to the dust bin of history. this is something that's important to our society, to our foundation. let's love everybody, let's use law enforcement to stop those like the evil perpetrator in charleston. like the left winger, i think it was in north carolina, that killed the muslims. there's no-call for that. -- there's no call for that. the man needs to go to prison in. -- prison. in texas we'd say it was a multiple murder. i'd say you need to get the death penalty for killing more than one muslim. no place for that.

but again, when it comes to the optimum home, a loving mother and father can prokereat, adopt -- pro create, adopt. but rad -- procreate, adopt. but regardless of who agrees or disagrees, this is going to be a civilization changer and it's not going to be for better. we're going to continue our divisiveness and destructiveness because when the highest court in the land has justices that say, my opinion is so much more important than the bible moses, jesus, my opinion is mucher -- is so much more valuable that i'm going to violate the law, i'm going to break the law so i can sit on so the -- on this opinion so the country can have my forced opinion on it, i know there are christian leaders, some are

ready to capitulate, but there are some that won't. but we are now to the point, steve king and i and some others, addressed back when the hate crime bill was being discussed, we're going to lead to the point where you ultimately persecute eventually prosecute people because of their beliefs about sexual assault -- about sexuality. people then were wrong because they couldn't see the future. but this is where we've come. now if you hold the same beliefs that david axelrod says the president didn't but he said in order to get elected that a marriage is a man and a woman, you hold that belief that most americans have held and still hold, that the founders all held, regardless of their sexuality they

believed a family, marriage at least, was a man and a woman. that that was foundational. so i'm not sure what's going to happen in this country. i don't have that kind of crystal ball. but i know if we have two or three justices who are clearly disqualified who have clearly indicated not only raised questions as to whether they could be reasonably -- question as to their impartiality they make clear they are very, very partial. i don't know what happens. but it isn't going to be good at all. we had justice sotomayor has made statements that indicate she has an opinion before this case was decided.

so mr. speaker, i hope scholars will look carefully at this and they will understand if supreme court justices violate the law in order to change the law dramatically, as they want to do, is that a valid law? i don't believe it is. if they break the law in order to make the law, it's a void law. they need to recuse themselves and let an impartial group on the court make the decision. should be left to the states anyway. but it's probably sufficient grounds for impeachment for a supreme court justice to violate the law so they can force their will upon the american people, to push

through their legislative agenda, even though they're not legislators. probably impeachment would be in order. if they break the law in order to change dramatically the law, shouldn't be on the supreme court. it's my hope and prayer they will do the legal thing recuse themselves before the court makes final decision with regard to marriage. if they don't they will go down in legitimate american history books as being exceedingly destructive and history will note that they violated the law in order to change the law. so that it would be the way they wanted, not with a

constitutional amendment, not through a legislative process not by a constitutional convention that article 5 provides for, they just had the feeling that they wanted to tinker with over 200 years of law and foundational societal structure, and force america to abide by their legislative agenda. and again, i just can't get over it. if they don't disqualify themselves, they will violate the law to try to change the law, with the agenda they've made clear that they have. so mr. speaker i hope americans will join me in not only hoping but praying that their hearts will be touched, that they will decide not to act illegally that they will be moved toward acting lawfully

disqualify themselves and let us get a proper opinion from the supreme court. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon tomorrow.

president obama: good afternoon, everybody. twell tell twell i spoke with -- i spoke with and pat biden

spoke with leaders of charleston to express our deep sorrow over the senseless murders that took place last night. michelle and i know several members of that church. we knewir pastor who along with others, was murdered last night. and to say our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families and community doesn't say enough to convey the heartache and the sadness and the anger that we feel. any death of this sort is a tragedy.