13 bills on the agenda. one funding the f.a.a. until march 31 of next year. two others dealing with exemptions to the nation's health care law. and then later in the week, the house may take up an abortion and medicaid payments bill. and a bill to temporarily fund the u.s. government. house coming in right now and then back at 3:00 p.m. eastern for work on these bills. live coverage now to the house. chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear lord, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we come to you as a nation in the midst of significant imminent transition even as important disagreements on policy promise vigorous debate in the days and weeks to come. as people look for causes and solutions, the temptation is great to seek ideological position. we ask that you might send your spirit of peace and

reconciliation that instead of asendency over opponents the members of this people's house and all elected to represent our nation might work together humbly, recognizing the best in each other's hopes to bring stability and direction toward a strong future. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. e speaker pro tem: the speaker announces to the house his approval there of. "new england journal of medicine." the pledge pledge will be led by the jafment michigan, mr. kildee. mr. kildee: ask all present to point us in the pledge. pladgeplodge plunge. - pladgeplodge plunge.

-- pladgeplodge plunge. entertain r will requests one minute speeches. frops the jafment south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to drem. rend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: woid, jatvecked for one min. mr. wilson: this week the house armed services committee, lend by chairman mike thornberry, marks cyberweek, a week that highlights the importance of cyberto our families and to our military. this week of hearings with witnesses from private corporations and the department of defense is a fitting start as we also recognize cybersecurity awareness month during october. recent cyberattacks like the devastating attack on the office of personnel management have made it clear that cyberis a new domain of attacks on american families. personal data such as social security number, financial

information, and security clearance documents were stolen. putting the personal and financial security of our citizens at risk. the attack underscores the increased reports of cyberattacks against our military websites, government data, and businesses. as chairman of the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities with dedicated staff members like people i know, kevin gates, and nevada chad letter, i look forward to sishe week's focus to protect america's families. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war n terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech for one minute. without objection. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. well, almost unbelievably here we are just two days away from another g.o.p. government shut down.

republicans who control both houses of congress have yet to bring a budget agreement just a couple of days before the government shuts down that would keep government open. we stand ready, democrats stand ready to negotiate, to talk, to come up with an agreement that move this country forward, that can keep government opened at the very least. we just can't afford another government shutdown. the last time th happened it cost the economy billions of dollars. people lost their jobs. shutting this government down allowing the government to be shut down, over a partisan ideological point, is reckless and ought to be avoided at all cost. you don't have to look very far in the headlines to see that the republican conference is in ome dis-- disarafmente i understand that. meanwhile the business of the

american people has to be attended to. we have got to get this country back to work. if we don't do that, we will not be doing the jobs people sent us here to do. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the city of carpenteria. incorporated on september 28, 1965, the city is home to over 13,000 residents on the central coast of california. its known as one of america's finest small towns and it also has been recognized as one of the american cities with the highest quality of life. the city is a leader in environmental stewardship,

working to protect california's precious coastline. the city beach has been recognized as the world's safest beach. their local economy has thrived with its vibrant cultural history and this unique agricultural region is home to california's famed avocado festival. i'm proud to honor the city on their 50th anniversary. it's a key treasure on the central coast. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 25, 2015, at 5:12 p.m. that the senate passed senate 2082. with best wishes i am, signed

sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 3:00 p.m. today.

>> when you look at the role that the supreme court is playing in our society now, our history series has to have relevance. so as we thought about what can we do to get relevance to our current programming? a series on the court made all the sense in the world. >> the court is an equal branch of government. it's the third branch of government. it still has fundamental impact on american -- america. >> inside this elegant build something a courtroom where cases are heard and decisions are made that impact all of our lives. there's so many incredibly interesting cases in the court's history. we have all heard about roe vs. wade, we heard about brown vs. board of education. for so many people they are names in a textbook. what we want to do is really talk about the -- not only the legal side of the cases but the people involved in these cases, they are human beings who felt so passionately that they were

being wronged or rights abridged that they brought their cases to the court. >> i think what people will find most fascinating about these cases are the personal stories. one of my personal favorites is matt vs. ohio and the story of mapp. when people hear this personal story of this woman and the situation that they will fall in love with these cases. that they will feel passionate about what happens in the courts and why they matter and why you should care. >> picking the 12 cases was a really difficult and ard with us task. it was fun because we learned a lot, but those 12 cases represent really our evolving under understanding of rights in america when you look from dred scott to the miranda, all the way through roe vs. wade, you do learn not only about the history of the country but the evolving rights in america. >> landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions, produced in cooperation with the national constitution

center, deviling into 12 supreme court cases that significantly influenced our nation's story and in our evolving understanding of rights in america. live monday nights at the:00 p.m. eastern beginning october 5. on c-span and c-span3. and as a companion to our new series, landmark cases, the book. it features the 12 cases we have selected for the series with a brief introduction into the background, highlights, and impact of each case. written by veteran supreme court journalist, tony morrow. published by c-span in cooperation with congressional quarterly press. and imprant of sage publications incorporated. landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping and handling. get your copy at c-span.org/landmark cases. >> republican presidential candidate donald trump held a news conference earlier today and he announced his tax plan. it includes dropping millions from the tax rolls and reduces the number of tax brackets.

>> we are going to be discussing something so important for our country, our economy, and getting us all working again and working well again. 's a tax reform that i think will make america strong and great again. americans are working too many jobs are being shipped overseas. too many middle income families cannot make ends meet. this plan directly meets these challenges and the challenges also of business. it will provide major tax relief for middle income and for most other americans. there will be a major tax reduction. it will simplify the tax code. it will grow the american

economy at a level that it hasn't seen for decades. to all of this does not add our defendant but also be discussing some of that at the end because we have to make much better deals, we have to negotiate much harder, and make our economy strong. changes for individuals will be at levels that you haven't seen in a long time. we are going to cut the individual rates from seven brackets to four. simplification. 25%, 20%, 10%, 0%. if you're single and earn less or $25,000, per year, married and jointly and jointly

earn $50,000. so very important. if you're single and earn less than $25,000 or married and jointly earn less than $50,000 you'll not pay any income tax. nothing. this eliminates very strongly and quickly the marriage penalty, very unfair penalty. it eliminates the ament which is the alternative -- a.m.t. which is the alternative minimum tax. it ends the death tax, a double taxation, a lot of families go through hell over the death tax. it reduces or eliminates most of the deductions and loopholes available to special interests and to the very rich. n other words, it's going to -- which is actually true. while preserving charitable

giving and mortgage interest deductions. ery importantly. it impacts treatment of the carried interest, those of the hedge fun pfund folks i have been talking about for quite a lot. make a lot of money. carried interest. so it ends the current tax treatment of carried interest for speculative partnerships that do not grow businesses or create jobs and are not risking their own capital. changes in business is so important. it's all about business. it's all about jobs. we have 93 million people in this country that are in serious trouble that want to work, they can't work. so for business no business of any size from a fortune 500 company to a mop and pop shop, to a freelancer living from gig

to gig will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. big reduction. a one-time deemed repatriation of corporations held overseas at significantly discounts, coming back at a significantly discounted -- it comes back discounted at a 10% tax rate and ends the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. now, it's called corporate inversion. it's a huge subject. i have been watching politicians now for years. all talk, no action politicians. i have been watching them for years talking about bringing this money back. the number is probably $2.5 trillion. everybody agrees it should come back. republicans, democrats, everybody.

they can't make a deal. they don't know how to go about making a deal. the reason companies aren't bringing it back is the tax is onerous. it doesn't make sense. many companies are leaving the united states. it they are leaving our shores to go and collect their money, they are going actually moving out of the united states for two reasons. the taxes are too high. and because they have tremendous -- they can't bring back into this country when everybody wants them to bring it back in. called leadership. we will have that money brought back in. as an example, i have millions of dollars overseas. i can't bring it back into the country. we file papers. been doing this for a year and a half. can't get it back in. so the money stays in other countries and that's what happens. not good for us.

the level of leadership that we need to get things like this done is so important. but this is something, and i have been watching it for a long time, everybody agrees to. we also reduce or eliminate some business loopholes, many of them actually, and deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on business income. he tax rate now is so low that -- which are complicated, which don't make sense, and which are unfair are gone. and we phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of the business interest expense. so we are going to give you -- we have a set of papers that actually if you know business is not so complex. and we are going to hand them out right now to the press. and i think you'll see we have a -- an amazing code.

it will be simple. it will be easy. it will be fair. it's graduated. as you get up in income, you pay a little more. some of the very unfair deductions that certain people have been given who make a lot of money will not be available any longer, but i actually believe they'll do better because i think the economy ill grow rapidly and will have something very special. with all of that being said, and before we take some questions, we have to cut the costs of what's going on in this country. if you look at what we are doing, and the money we are spending, i read where a washer, you know what a washer is? nuts, bolts, and washer, to send from one state to another, it was a 19 cent washer and it ost $900 some-odd,000 to send. and there are many examples.

hammers that cost $800 that you can buy in the store for a tiny amount of money. we will run this country properly. there is so much money to be saved. we are reducing taxes, but at the same time if i win, if i become president, we will be able to cut so much money. we won't be losing anything other than we'll be balancing budgets and getting them where they should be. so this is a plan that's simple. that's a major reduction. i think people are going to be very happy. we have already had some very good reviews. i did the plan with some of the leading scholars and economists and tax experts that there are in this country. they love it. they say why hasn't this been done before? and this is my wheelhouse, that's what i do well. the economy is what do i well.

whenever they do polls, i always come out way ahead of anyone else on the economy and on leadership, by the way, but i won't say that. so if anybody has -- [applause] thank you. that's amazing. that's some of the press was actually clapping. i never saw that. i don't think i've ever seen that before. all right. why don't we take some questions from the press? yes. go ahead. no, i'm not going to do that. but we have some of the top people in the country who worked on this. [inaudible] donald trump: well, we think it could be 3%. maybe 5%. that would be tremendous. and by the way, if we have more than 3%, these numbers are really spectacular, and one of the things that they don't take into account in any big league

fashion is the cutting. there is so much waste in government that i believe when i get in there i will be able to cut, without losing anything, to cut tremendous amounts off of the -- and we're not even showing anything for that. so they are very conservative numbers. yes, sarah. [inaudible] donald trump: my taxes will -- my taxes -- first of all, i have a much simpler tax statement. it will be much simpler. when i do my return, it will be much -- my returns go up to the ceiling and beyond. which is ridiculous. and you spend millions of dollars at a high level on lawyers, accountants and everything else. we want to simplify them to a tremendous -- tremendous level. the -- the bracket of 25, the big difference is many of the loopholes and many of the deductions, which are old, have been there for years, are antiquated, are put there

because a lot of the people that get these deductions are contributed to hillary, they're contributing to bush, they're contributing to every candidate but trump because i'm not taking any money. i'm self-funding. and these people want these deductions. there will be people -- we're reducing taxes, but believe me. there will be people in the very upper echelons that won't be thrilled with this. we're taking away deductions and that's one of the reasons we're able to lower it. so -- [inaudible] donald trump: this is actually a tax reduction. a big tax reduction. including for the upper income. i believe that the economy will do so well that even though they won't be getting certain deductions, which aren't fair for them to be getting, that they'll be end up doing better. ok. yes. go ahead. inaudible]

trump: i just think this is a commonsense approach. we can say supply side. you could say there's 15 different names given out for increases. i don't think it's supply side or anything else. i think this is a commonsense, well-thought out tax proposal that's going to trigger the economy, going to make everybody go back and really want to work, it's going to create tremendous numbers of jobs. one of the other things that i'm coupling this with, if i become president, i'm going to renegotiate our trade deals. because our trade deals are not sustainable by this country. not sustainable. we cannot continue to let our jobs go to all of the different countries. there's not a country that we negotiate with that doesn't make a better deal. everybody. we lose money with everything. i'm also going to renegotiate some of our military costs, because we protect south korea. we protect germany. we protect some of the wealthiest countries in the world. saudi arabia. we protect everybody.

we protect everybody. we don't get reimbursement. we lose on everything. we lose on everything. so we're going to negotiate and renegotiate trade deals, military deals, many other deals that's going to get the cost down for running our country very significantly. i'm not showing a big number in that, but i believe that if i become president those numbers are going to be massive. as an example, saudi arabia. they make a billion dollars a day. we protect them. so we need help. we're losing a tremendous amount of money on a yearly basis, and we owe $19 trillion. i used to say $18 trillion for the last six, seven months. now it's $19 trillion and it's only going up. yes, tom.

i built a great company -- you'll see that in "60 minutes. it's a great company, tremendous cash flow. i'm funding my own campaign. guys like rubio. i mean, he desperately needs money. has a car dealer in florida. ask the people that support him. and a guy like rubio and others -- i don't want to single him out. you're singling him out. but they're largely controlled by their donors, the special interests and frankly more than anybody else the lobbyists. i've turned down millions of dollars from lobbyists and special interests because it's not the right thing. it's just not right. and that seems to be resonating y --

[applause] donald trump: thank you, thank you. inaudible] donald trump: negotiate. is that a bad thing? the country should do that. yeah, i would. i would bring that same attitude to the white house. she says i have a habit, when you get a bill, you call up and you negotiate. to me that's a compliment. no, i want to take that thinking to the white house. i would bet you we could save 20% of our budget. i could even say more but we could save. that has to be the attitude our country has. you can't spend millions and millions of dollars on doing something that you can do for $2,000. you know, when you look at costs, we just spent $1 million building a soccer field, ok. a soccer field.

for our prisoners that happen to be in guantanamo. ok. i don't like that. what do you need a million dollars for? level out the surface. let them play if they have to play at all. ok. what do you need to spend a million dollars? we just spent -- it's a story today. a million dollars on a soccer field? how do you spend a million dollars doing a soccer field? you have a level piece of land, throw them a ball. let them play soccer if they have to play at all. why are they playing soccer is my question. yes, sir. go ahead. not enough time. go ahead. why don't you go ahead? [inaudible] donald trump: right. inaudible] donald trump: no, not at all.

we're lowering taxes which republicans love, and i think one of the reasons i'm doing so well in the polls and one of the reasons i'm doing so well when it comes to the economy in all polls is that this is the thinking. no, we're lowering taxes very substantially. we're simplifying and we're getting rid of deductions that are actually obsolete that certain people want to keep for certain reasons. no, that's not true. yes, sir. o ahead. well, putin was interviewed and i was interviewed last night. i thought charlie rose did an excellent job. i thought his was a softer interview. scott pelly interviewed me. it was a tough interview, but i thought he was very fair. and i thought the piece was very good. yeah, go ahead. why is he harder on me than

putin? i would say because putin is a nicer person than i am. ok. go ahead. [applause] ight, right. the worst in 36 years. ok. well, it's a good question and you can't connect the dots but i guess it has been probably since 2004, you know, you're talking about 10 years, 11 years, 12 years that people wanted to bring the money back in the country. again, it's called corporate inversion and a lot of times the corporations are moving out and they're going to other countries taking jobs. and now we have a really big problem because we have serious companies very large, very prestigious companies as you know. obviously you know something about business, but we have

major companies looking to move out of the united states. you know, it used to be they'd move from new york to florida or from new jersey to texas or whatever. now they're talking about moving from the united states to ireland and to england and to other places, to spain where they get treated differently and frankly better. and they're doing that for a number of reasons but one of the big reasons is, you know, is taxes. one of the other reasons is to get all of this cash that they built up and they can't get back into our country. when this money comes back into our country, that everybody wants it's going to be put to work in our country largely. it can go other places, but largely. and i think it will be an amazing boom. now, here's the other thing. they think it's $2.5 trillion. i think it's much more than that. i actually think it's going to be more money than that, and boy, if it is, we have hit pay -- yes, real fast.

inaudible] well, you know when you end the repatriation, when you get the money coming back in beyond tremendous things happen. sarah, go ahead. [inaudible] well, i'll be announcing that in the not-too-distant future. i'm the only one that's honest about thing. i watch romney and i watch -- oh, i pay so much taxes. i pay so much tax. i watch all politicians and they pay -- i fight like hell to pay as little as possible. i'm not a politician. i fight like hell always because it's an expense and you know, i'd feel -- i fight, i have the best lawyers and the best accountants and i fight and i pay. . frankly i would feel differently if this country was spending the money wisely instead of throwing it out the drain. our country spends our money so

stupidly, and i will tell you that i can speak for myself, i pay a lot of tax, but i fight like hell to make it as low as possible. but i would feel a lot differently if our leadership was such that i respected the decisions. all you have to do is look at a list of the things that our government is spending money on right now. and you don't feel so good about our country. yes. [inaudible] mr. trump: i tell you what, in terms of income and inequality. we'll create a lot of jobs. right now we have a false 5.4, 5.3, 5.6, every month is different, it is such a phony number because when people look and look and look, and then they give up looking for a job, they are taken off the rolls. the number isn't reflective. i have seen numbers of 24%. i saw a number of 42%

unemployment. 42%. and it could be. because when you're looking for a job and you go around and you look and you look and fight, you want to work, want to take care of your family, and then you can't get the job and you know what i'm talking about because you're shaking your head, and you can't get the job, essentially for statistical purposes, you are considered employed. so then i read, every time it omes out, i hear, 5.3% unemployment. that is the biggest joke there is in this country. that number is so false. people ask, how come trump is doing so well? and carson and others? how come they are -- you know why they are doing well? because people are tired of political speak. they are tired of that. the worst example of it, one of the worst is the phony unemployment rate. the unemployment rate is probably 20%. but i will tell you you have

some great economists that will tell you it's 30%, 32%. the highest i have heard so far is 42%. there's anger out there at the job picture. one other thing, with that being said, china, japan, mexico, brazil, these countries are all taking our jobs. like we are a bunch of babies. that will stop. people will treat us fairly if i become president. we are losing our jobs. we are losing our base. we are losing our manufacturing. all of that will stop. o ahead. number one it's simplification. number two, what i'm really doing is the big picture because corporations now are going to start having a incentive to create jobs. they are going to have a incentive also to stay in this country.

if they provide bigger dividends people will have more money to spen. if a corporation gives out a bigger dividend, that's great. should chris christie what? [inaudible] mr. trump: i know nothing about that. go ahead. [inaudible] mr. trump: i'm not a populist. i'm a man of great common sense. i'm a man that's built a tremendous company with the best locations in real estate. the best everything. you're here at one of them. i have many of these. great jobs. i have employed tens of thousands of people. i employ now thousands and thousands of people. i have done a good job, but i wouldn't say populist at all. i would say i'm a man of common

sense. i'm cutting taxes. i'm going to create a lot of jobs. i'm going to get rid of a tremendous amount of waste. i'll tell you what. the waste that i get rid of, the waste that i get rid of is going to have a huge impact. i'm not even putting that in my numbers. i think it's going to be terrific. how about one more question. go ahead. [inaudible] mr. trump: the motor industry. that's a beautiful way of describing it. the motor industry. where are you from? england. what a beautiful accent. i want to get the industry, we call it the automobile industry, but i want to get the automobile industry to build factories here. as you know ford is building a $2.5 billion factory in mexico. mexico also took a big plant out of tennessee. and tennessee thought they were going to get it and didn't. i want the motor companies, as you would say, or the automobile companies to build the united in

states. i don't want in a kiss bow leaving for mexico or any place else. i want these companies not to leave chicago, not to leave michigan, not leave new hampshire, and iowa and south carolina and all of these places where they are leaving and they are going to other countries. i want them to stay here. they will stay here and they'll be so happy. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. it's been a great honor. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> donald trump from earlier today. if you missed any of that news conference, we'll show it again to you tonight starting at 8:30 eastern on our companion network, c-span2. we also invite your comments on his tax plan on our facebook page and on twitter. we have this for you from politico. the immediate threat of a government shutdown is all but gone for now. but it will return with a

vengeance, soon. but the glide path to avoiding a shutdown this week sets up an even bigger clash in december when lawmakers have to agree on a new funding bill for a new fiscal year. democrats both ends of the capitol as well as the white house will demand raising the current caps for domestic spending. but hawkish republicans have long insisted boosting cash for defense programs while fiscal conservatives will abhor any additional spending overall. you can read more about that from today's politico. and we have more on what the house and senate will be doing this week. and last week's resignation announcement by house speaker john baber. we covered it all on this morning's "washington journal." >> "washington journal" continues. host: good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: what is the likelihood that the government will be shut down by the end of the week? guest: pretty little, i think. it seems that with the departure of mr. boehner on friday, the pressure has relieved for the

shutdown vote. we anticipate a vote in the senate today to move that process forward, it's actually find the government. we expect of oh in the house by wednesday. this thing, we believe, we believe, we believe that by wednesday evening they will come solution.short term this is called a clean continuing resolution, basically extending the current budget through december 11 with no policy changes. importantly, not including the language that conservatives are looking for. this was a sticking point. a look slick they will have a different approach to this problem. host: on the senate side, what happens to folks like ted cruz, who said they would rise up in opposition, and senator rand

paul? is that likely to happen? yeah.t: the votes are going forward. rand paul and ted cruz do not have enough votes to push the on the senate floor. the center operates in this weird world where minority of senators can complain a lot, but at some point, you have to get decide to move the bill to the floor. if they cannot get the vote, it dies. it looks like that is what is happening in the senate. host: that brings us to december. what happens in december? guest: i canceled my holiday travel plans. i recommend you do the same. we really don't know. in december, we will face a number of things all at once. government funding will again be expiring, they will have to figure out what to do. we will also hit the debt ceiling, and they have to figure

out whether or not to raise the debt ceiling once again. this becomes an issue that for conservatives, it is really a fundamental argument about going into more debt. the whole argument about how we are mortgaging our future to china. and yet, the democrats argue frequently, and usually with success recently, that you cannot default on all promissory notes by failing to take the debt and spend the money. that will be a december battle. we have a highway funding bill that has to come up sometime between now and then. there's a whole bunch of stuff that is going to have to be hammered out over the next few months, and keep in mind, we don't know who the speaker is going to be and who the rest of the republican leaders will be. significantend some quality time arguing over that first, before they get to the

substantive issues. as december, is the possibility that they can pass another short-term extension of they want to? guest: sure. the way congress operates is they are best when they kick things down the road for later. unt onould certainly p a funding bill for another week, to lease, three weeks. lester, it was the middle of january before they got the bill passed. they can do whatever they want to do. the debt ceiling is a bigger issue. they have less flexibility there. the treasury department always has some emergency tools at their disposal to stretch this deadline out as far as possible. sooner or later, they will need to vote on that with a little less flexibility. possible government shutdown scheduled for october 1. paul singer talking about that and other issues. he is a washington

correspondent. if you want to ask them questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. .202) 745-8002 for independents go ahead and call us, and we will take those calls in just a moment. talk about leaving planned parenthood out of this equation as far as the shutdown vote. guest: this you have -- the issue you have in any of these battles, if you want to defund planned parenthood, and we will talk about is in the short term that would be meaningful. the democrats that say that the money planned parenthood gets from the government has largely been issued anyway until february or march next year when next year's grant are up. you can make an argument that any bill you past until december has no real planned parenthood money and it anyway -- in it anyway. it would have to get through the senate, and they're probably not enough votes on the floor to get

it to the senate. it would have to give the president of the united states, who would likely veto it. they're certainly not enough votes in the senate to override a presidential veto. while the very conservative of house republicans want to force president obama into the argument, they want to force them to make that decision and announce, yes, i want to accept shutting down the government plannedi want to defund parenthood. it is not clear if there is a path to get back to his desk. host: the first call for you comes from rick, democrats line. caller: good morning. i question for your guest is the republicans want to shut down wal while in ourd foreign aid package, like to

israel, they have the most lacks abortion policies in the world. a teenager in israel can get an thetion at any term during presidency. the kicker is the government spends 100% for those abortions. i would like to hear the republicans explain why they are against it here, yet supported around the world. guest: i do not know anything about the policy, yet i will tell you that in the number of bills, the united states congress has limited the use of any u.s. money for abortions overseas. there has been a whole series of orders on whether or not you can use foreign aid money to counsel known't abortion

whether there is any direct u.s. funding to israel that can then be used for abortion services. i honestly don't know. hi.: francis from oklahoma, who is going to suffer with all the stuff going on? we are the ones that will suffer if they shut down the government. good: it is a very question on the impact. if the government shuts down -- we have been down this road a couple of times now -- there are a number of emergency provisions in place to prevent disaster , which is to say the defense department is still

working, the folks doing security at the airports. anybody serving an emergency function still comes to work and get stuff done. there is always this question of will it affect the social security checks going out. again, my recollection of how this works is they will actually slow down over time. , sooner orets paid later, even the government workers like it laid off was suspended during this time, they get paid sooner or later also. in fact, it ends up costing the government more to do that because they have to back pay the employees. the question is exactly who is infected first. the most direct impact is if you are waiting for a less urgent government service -- a national

park permit, or some sort of museum, to get into an event. that sort of low impact stuff is what they will close first. i believe you will find the administration has the flexibility to take those services that have the best pr. it is great to put "closed" signs on the museums because all the reporters go and take pictures. it is excellent not like a light switch. ,ost: you said social security what about safety net programs, are they affected as well? guest: the mandatory program still get paid. you still get food stamps, or whatever it is. you may not be able to reach someone on the phone for a customer call it mind.

that is where you get into issues of who is considered an essential employee and who is not. host: tony doing us from sioux falls, -- joining us from sioux falls, go ahead. caller: i was going to see how it will affect play social security, section eight, medicaid, vocational rehab, different things like that. is it going to affect that? guest: my understanding is that when thedon't change government shutdown takes place. again, if you are receiving a government benefit that is one of these entitlement programs, you continue to receive that. the trouble comes if you are receiving secondary services. if you have a difficulty with your check and need to make a phone call to somebody either

line, -- at a one 800 that is where i think you will see an immediate problem. again, first of all, i don't think we will have a shut down this week. second of all, one of the reasons that it becomes harder to shut down the government in december is that they do not want to get into these kinds of issues at christmas. it is terrible pr. host: one of the people who says it will be a shut down is house speaker john boehner. he was asked specifically about this question. here is some of his reasoning. [video clip] the senate is expected to pass the continuing resolution next week. the house will take up the senate bill. we will also take up a select committee to investigate these horrific videos that we have seen from abortion clinics in several states that really raise

questions about the use of federal funds, and raises questions about the abortive ed fetuses. >> the continuing resolution, will that require democratic votes? , i'm sure it will, but i believe my colleagues want to keep that government open as much as i do. guest: one of the issues that is out of drove mr. boehner office really is the conservatives in his party want planneda way to defund parenthood. these videos they came out over the summer that suggests that people in the organization tissue fromlling abortions for profit. they say these were heavily edited videos, taken out of

context, it is not what they do -- whatever, i don't get into that debate. the political issue is conservative specifically want to defund planned parenthood. how do you do that? they tried to do it on a short-term spending bill, but could not get the votes to get it through the senate and to the president's desk. meanwhile, there are several investigations going on in the , several committees investigating planned parenthood to see whether or not some criminal activity has taken place, whether they have done what is alleged, and if so, what are the ramifications. my impression is what mr. weiner is trying to do is find other to give republicans opportunity to investigate this matter, vote on this matter, and raise their concern, which i ahink is legitimate -- legitimate concern. our things being done with taxpayer money that we do not

approve of? they will pursue that. they will also try budget reconciliation, which is a whole nother process that would take away the planned parenthood money. host: you had said initially that the act of john boehner residing could possibly help the government from shutting down. how do you figure that? guest: part of the argument about the shutdown was the argument about john boehner's leadership. the conservatives feeling they were basically elbowed out. they were not given a vote. boehner's departure basically gives them -- it sort of takes away a point of argument. we will fightch the speaker, we will push for a shutdown. said,eaker has basically

see you later, and what we are at it, we will pass the bill and move the government forward. the conservatives clearly don't have the vote to stop this bill. they will probably argue against it vehemently. host: jerry from georgia, democrats line. caller: hi. i just wanted to make a comment really. i am retired from the government. the rest of my family are either retired from state or federal government jobs. i respect what the government has given me through my life. i appreciate it. they have this tea party mentality where they would love to see the government shutdown. they hate the government. from they are, retired government jobs, on medicare, getting all the services that government can provide them, and

they hate the government. can you explain that disconnect to me? irony there has been this that we have talked about for years about people saying they did not want the affordable care act, and keep your hands off my medical care, basically, and yet, they were receiving a great deal of government care. all of us, in fairness, would say, we do not want yet,nment assistance, and there are government assistance programs that we take advantage of all the time. i think you do not see how pervasive it is in your life until you stop and have this conversation about what exactly does the government do for me on a given day. benefit,t is my tax the security guards thou me get in and out of the capital building, whatever it is. in your daily life, you do not think about how much you interact with the government on a regular basis. , since thehing is

early 1990's, there has been this drumbeat of conservative thought that the government is too big, it controls too much of our lives. it is not only no longer helping us grow, but in fact is impeding our development as a civilization. it is a philosophical point. there is a worthwhile conversation about that philosophy. i think it comes to your question -- where does the philosophy of the government has gone too big interact with, yes, but there is still stuff i want the government to do for me. host: paul singer with "usa today" joining us to talk about a possible government shutdown, and other topics. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents. from indiana, here is dave. caller: good morning. problem with how this

network is talking about the shutdown. every time you talk about the shutdown, you blink it like -- like a gop shutdown. that is not the way it is. only person holding up them doing their job is harry reid. if they were to do the nuclear option, blow him up, pass it, and put it on obama's desk, the congress would have still done its job, and then it would be the president who would sign it or not. if he does not find it, the government which it down because of -- would shut down because of his action. you notice, it is never a shutdown where any of the people they get the money to the democrats -- they never suffer. it is always some poor little better that cannot get into a monument somewhere. tango.it takes two to

you're exactly right. if the president wants to over this shut down, he could say, ok, i will is that all of the policy amendments that republicans want to make an order to fund the government. that is true. it is also true that republicans are pushing policy provisions that they know the president will not accept. i think the caller at his point. i think he is exactly right. this is not a one-party government shutdown. or shutdown, which are don't think there will be. dance.s a delicate the whole point of the way government works is the various branches have to agree on a forward.ward -- a path if neither side is willing to compromise, we reach this screeching halt. i do not assign blame to who is

the responsible party, but the fact of the matter is the republicans passing for this particular piece of legislation, no from the outside that the only way to get that done is force a showdown with the president over shutting down the government. they want tohat take his force it into a shutdown conversation. host: on the idea of a path forward, let's talk of the path housed for the leadership your lips are with kevin mccarthy. what does he bring to the table? guest: he is the majority leader, the second in command in the republican party. he has not have that job very long. he took it over about one year cantor lost ac primary to a tea party challenger. mccarthy has only been in congress about one decade. he is fairly new for that role.

i think he is very likely to get the speaker's job at this point. one of his strengths is he's a very personable fellow. he has a habit of posting members in his office all the time to chat about stuff, even conservatives who are unhappy with john boehner say they feel like he has skills of listening to them that they appreciate. a challenge. there will be a tea party candidate, but even the house freedom caucus -- the leading vanguard of this tea party movement in the house now -- the freedom caucus members have said they do not think they have enough votes to elect the speaker, but they have enough votes to affect the process. i think part of the process will be these vaunted discussions of sitting down with mr. mccarthy and say, we want to be included in some of these dialogues. host: i know daniel webster

has expressed interest. have they propose a candidate of their own? guest: they want to meet the candidates and talk to the candidates. keep in mind, we're not talking just the speaker's job, but if kevin mccarthy leads up to speaker, someone has to become majority leader, and there are about a half dozen leadership positions that will be open for discussion, debate, and bot a v. the freedom caucus, what they have asked for is a little bit of time. they don't want to rush. they want to have time to discuss the various confidence -- candidates and where the party is going. there is a pretty significant swath >> we'll leave this "washington journal" segment here, continue to watch it on our website at

c-span.org. the house is gaveling in to start work on 13 smaller bills, one funding the f.a.a. until march 31 of next year, a couple others dealing with exemptions to the health care law. 1624, a. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1624, a bill to amend title 1 of the patient protection and affordable care act and title 27 of the public health service act to revise the definition of small -- 28 of the public health service act to revise the definition of small employer. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from california, mr. cardenas, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and insert remarks extraneous materials in the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. pitts: the bipartisan bill before us today is a much-needed fix for small business owners and employees struggling to comply with the health care law. h.r. 1624 is a bill to amend the patient protection and affordable care act and the public health service act to revise the definition of small employer. the bill would allow the states to continue defining the small group health insurance market s employers with one to 50 employees. sections 1304 of the patient protection and affordable care act change the federal definition of the small group market to include employers with one to 100 employees. the states, however, have been allowed to continue defining the small group market as employers with one to 50 employees until january 1, 2016.

but beginning on or after january 1, 2016, plans sold or renewed for employers with 51 to 100 employees will be subject to the various small group health plans regulations established by ppaca. these more restrictive rating rules will increase health insurance premiums for these employers and reduce flexibility and benefit design. the new requirements could also lead some employers with 51 to 100 employees to self-insure to avoid higher premiums. if that happens, this could result in adverse selection in the small group pool and higher premiums for employers with one to 50 employees. unless this current law is reversed, the disruption in the marketplace will be significant. for example, it is estimated that under current law more than three million employees will experience a double-digit

percent increase in their health care premiums. ultimately, cost increases for small employers will change their choices regarding offering coverage, could change their business model and will ultimately be felt by millions of workers. because of the impact of current law will vary by state, defining the small group market should be left to the states, which is a policy envisioned in h.r. 1624. i'm pleased to say there's considerable support for this legislation in the house and the senate. the flexibility that would be given to states with immediate assage of h.r. 1624 would help ensure stable small group health insurance markets that reflect the unique characteristics in each of the states. if congress passes h.r. 1624, premiums will be lower and millions of employees and

employers, by letting them keep the plan they have and like, this is a commonsense policy that deserves our bipartisan support and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 1624. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cardenas: thank you very much. t this point i'd like to yield back and reserve the balance of my time so that congressman guthrie can speak first. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time? mr. cardenas: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the vice chair of the health subcommittee on energy and commerce, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to be here and i rise in support of 1624, the protection -- protecting affordable coverage for employees act. this bill, which i introduced along with my friend from california, mr. cardenas, congressman markwayne mullin of oklahoma and krysten sinema of arizona, will protect smaller employees from increased health care costs and would prevent their employees from being forced out of their current health care plans. the small group market is currently defined as one to 50 employees, but a provision in the health care law will expand the group size to one to 100 on january 1. with this expansion comes more onerous regulations and the expectation of dramatic rate hikes. one estimate by oliver wineman predicts those in the 50 to 100 will see an increase based on the new rating rules alone. h.r. 1624 stops the mandated expansion of the small group

market on -- that will occur on january 1 and allow states to define their own market. mr. speaker, i've heard from many kentuckyians who will be impacted by the change and the concerns are real. small businesses are afraid to expand. mid-sized businesses don't know you ho to plan for this new change. this widespread support in over the half the house are co-sponsors. nearly a third of the senate are co-sponsors. members of both sides of the aisle agree we must act now to stop this new mandate. it's been a great pleasure of working with mr. cardenas. it's an issue that we see is happening in washington, that's happening out across in our districts, out across to the businesses and both sides of the aisle have come together to say let's change the law, let's make sure that the small businesses and medium-sized businesses are not affected and let's move forward. and i think it's -- i really appreciate -- it wasn't just we signed our names as co-sponsors. a lot of hard work, i know that

mr. cardenas did to bring more and more co-sponsors to this bill. and this is a significant change. it's significant for the people that live in our districts, and i encourage the support and i appreciate mr. cardenas, ms. sinema and mr. mullin, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. cardenas: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i would also like to first thank my colleague, congressman guthrie. it's been a pleasure and an honor to serve with you on this bill. it's really important for us to understand how monumental this moment is. this isn't the biggest bill in the world, but yet at the same time if you're a small business in the united states of america and you have one to 50 employees or now even one to 100 employees, this bill hopefully will help affect your business and your employees in a way that is better. i rise in support of h.r. 1624. i truly appreciate the willingness to work in a bipartisan bill as demonstrated today which is goes to

positively impact so many communities across the country through the small businesses that it will affect. h.r. 1624, the protecting affordable coverage for employees act, sprow deuced by my colleagues -- introduced by my colleagues, once again, mr. guthrie, mr. mullin, ms. sinema and myself, two republicans and two democrats, is a true bipartisan effort which would stop potential health insurance rate shocks by allowing states to determine the appropriate size of their small group market. as a former small business owner myself, i recognize the struggle there is to live out the american dream. i know how difficult it can be when a specific sector of small business is affected by regulations and laws created by local, state or federal governments. i have seen the impact in neighborhoods throughout my district when a small local business opens their doors or closes their doors. their supply chain is local, their employees have a vested interest in their success and their customers treasure the connection a small hometown

business brings. i echo the voice of the entire house of representatives when i applaud these small businesses, the risks they have taken and the celebration of their successes. the affordable care act isn't perfect. by no means the affordable care act isn't perfect, but i'm grateful for all the benefits the law has provided since its enactment. today more than 16 million americans have gained access to affordable health insurance that did not have it before enacting the act. my district is one of only two districts in the united states to see a double digit increase in insured residents since the implementation of the affordable care act. the affordable care act is the biggest change to american health care in the past 70 years. it brings down costs, covering more americans, making dozens of other crucial changes to how our nation views health care. however, no law is perfect. when it was first created, social security didn't cover agriculture and domestic workers. medicaid didn't begin to cover

mammograms until 1991. even with these fundamental programs of our nation's safety net, improvement and compromise was necessary to lead to more perfect laws. while certain states, like california, have decided to move forward with the expansion, this bill still provides states the flexibility to ensure market stability for small businesses across the country. i appreciate the bipartisan effort to bring this bill to the floor. i look forward to advancing the pace act and continuing to build on a record of working together in a bipartisan fashion. i was just sharing a moment with my colleague, congressman guthrie, in talking about how proud i am of this moment and how much i appreciate his willingness to reach across the aisle and work with us to make sure that we bring a fix, not the biggest fix, but a fix that will help american businesses and american workers across this country. it's an opportunity for us to work together but more

importantly it's an opportunity for us to do the job that we were elected to do, to put aside partisan bickering, to make sure that we look at what's best for america and try our best to bring a bill to the floor through both houses and hopefully from the signature of the president of the united states. again, it was due to this bipartisan effort that i think that what i just described is going to happen, and come january of 2016, it's going to be a better place for all of us, for our businesses and our workers because we were willing to work together. once again, it's not the easiest thing to do, but it's something that unfortunately is far too rare. i hope that this is the beginning, the beginning of many of us working together and making good things happen for america. and its territories. so thank you very much. i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 1624. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, this is a good bill. it's an important bill. it's a bipartisan bill, and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 1624, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1624, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on he table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass senate 136, the gold star fathers act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 136, an act to amend title 5 of united states code to provide that fathers of certain disabled or deceased veterans shall be considered with mothers of such veterans as eligible for preferable treatment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. wallburg and the gentleman, mr. lynch, each will control five minutes. mr. wallburg: i yield myself such time as i -- mr. walberg: i yield myself such

time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. walberg: i rise today in support of s. 136, the gold star fathers act of 2015. this important piece of legislation supports fathers of permanently disabled or deceased veterans in their search for employment with the federal government. under current law, mothers of certain permanently disabled or deceased veterans receive preference in hiring for civil service positions in recognition of their sack feese. that preference applies when the mother is widowed, divorced, or separated, or if their husband is totally or permanently disabled. the gold star fathers act of 2015 extends this same benefit to fathers. the bill also grants preference in hiring to parents who never married, along with those that are widowed, divorced, or legally separated. i thank senators wyden, brown,

an collins for their work over several congresses on this important issue and congressman esty for sponsoring the house companion bill. mr. speaker, we owe a debt of gratitude to our veterans and to the mothers and fathers of our veterans. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: i rise in support of s. 136, the gold star fathers act, introduced by senator ron wyden and co-sponsored by of tors brown of ohio and maine. it was reported out of the house oversight and government reform committee in july. this legislation has bipartisan

support in the house in the form of identical legislation, h.r. 1222 introduced by my colleague representative elizabeth esty of connecticut. in appreciation of the sacrifices that gold star families have made on behalf of our grateful nation the gold star fathers act would extend the 10-point hiring preference for federal civilian jobs to the fathers of service members who have been permanently disabled or who lost their lives while serving on active duty this would be identical to the federal hiring preference that has been available to our gold star mothers since 1948. this legislation is reflective of the immense gratitude we hold as a nation for the parents of our fallen and disabled hear heros. it also recognizes that the profound sacrifice our gold star families continue to endure every day is a burden that is shouldered by the very few on behalf of the entire nation.

back in boston, in south boston, my mother-in-law, helen shaughnessy, originally helen bailey, she's a gold star sister. she lost her brother, arnie, in april of 1944 in his first jump over the ryan, close to the end of the second -- over the rhine, close to the end of the second world war in europe. their family continues to carry that pain and burden each and every day. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support ms. esty in her efforts along with senator wyden and others in the senate to support s. 163 and i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: i'd like to make congressman lynch aware i have no further speakers and am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: at this time i would like to introduce and welcome

the lead sponsor of this bill in the house, ms. esty of connecticut has been a true champion on behalf of veterans all over this country and i yield her such time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of s. 136, the senate companion to my bill on the -- in the house, the gold star fathers act of 2015. i want to thank chairman chaffetz and ranking member cummings for their support of our gold star families and for prioritizing this bipartisan bill that would bring equity to the treatment of all gold star families. i want to thank my friend -- friends, mr. walberg and mr. lynch, for their support today. on memorial day last year, i met ith gold star are -- gold star families in connecticut. i heard the stories of how deeply they feel the loss of their loved ones, whether that loss was a year ago, 20 years ago, or 40 years ago.

i heard from mothers and i heard from fathers about the difficulty of continuing on without a member of their families that they held so dear. those willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country deserve to know that we will support end care for their loved ones they leave behind. after talking with these families, i knew that we needed to do more for these fwreeving families and we needed to do more to recognize the sacrifice of their loved ones. that's why i introduced the house bill exxonon of the gold star fathers act. our country has long recognized that mothers who have lost a child in military service or are caring for their son or daughter who was permanently disabled in the military deserve a hand when seeking federal employment. currently qualifying mothers of certain disabled or deceased

veterans are able to receive the veterans hiring preference that will no longer be used by their loved one when applying for certain federal service jobs. however, mothers are not the only ones who grieve. the loss of a child is felt just as strongly by our veterans' fathers as by their mothers. it's time to ensure equal treatment of and respect for all parents of deceased or disabled veterans. that's why the gold star fathers act would extend this hiring preference to fathers as well. in many cases, not only have the parents undergone significant trauma emotionally, but they've lost a working age member of their family and in the case of a permanently disabled child, they may have mounting medical bills to deal with as well. it's time to establish equality in our nation's treatment of the parents of deceased and disabled veterans. i want to thank senators wyden,

collins, and brown for their leadership on gold star fathers act in the senate and i want to thank my former colleague, representative bishop, for his past leadership on this issue as well. mr. speaker, i call on all my colleagues to join us in honoring our gold star families. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this bipartisan, unanimously supported gold star fathers act. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: i urge passage and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i urge adoption of this commonsense bill. it's more than commonsense. we talk about family values a lot. these are family values. these are highest family values of parents that have raised young people who are willing to step forward for our country. without consideration of their own lives or their futures in most cases.

and so i aplude my colleague's efforts on this behalf and i support -- applaud my colleague's efforts on this behalf and i support this bill and ask that i be supported by this body. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill s. 136. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. walberg: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 313, the wounded warriors federal leave act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar 132, h.r. 313, a bill to amend title 5 united states code to provide leave to any new federal employee who is a veteran with a service connected disability rated a 30% or more for purposes of undergoing medical treatment for such disability and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will -- pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walberg: i ask unanimous consent that all members have phi legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. walberg: i rise in support of h.r. 313, the wounded warriors federal leave act of 2015, sponsored by think colleague, stephen lynch. this important piece of legislation supports wounded warriors newly hired in the federal government. the wounded warriors act, federal leave act of 2015, support ours disabled veterans transitioning to careers by providing sick leave for medical sick leave and appointments that are related to their service connected disability. this bipartisan legislation provides immediate access to sick leave for any new federal

employee who is a veteran with a service connected disability rated at 30% or more for the purposes of undergoing medical treatment for such disability. because federal employees begin with a zero sick leave balance and accrue sick leave other time, disabled veterans beginning civilian jobs often have insufficient sick leave to attend medical appointments required for treatment of their service-connected disabilities. this bill provides our newly hired disabled veterans with immediate access of up to 13 days for sick leave so that a disabled -- so that our disabled veterans don't have to take unpaid leave to care for their service-connected injuries. mr. speaker, h.r. 313 is supported by a number of veteran and employee ornyizations, including the american lee -- organizationings, including the american legion, veterans of

foreign wars and the american management association. i commend mr. lynch for his leadership on this issue and for working with mr. farenthold, rarninging member cummings, mr. connolly and ms. norton for working to bring this bipartisan legislation before the committee. i want to acknowledge senators tester, moran, and too many mi for their work on the senate companion bill. i urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: i rise in strong support of h.r. 313, the wounded warriors federal leave act of 2015. i introduced this bipartisan legislation in january of this year, and i'm proud that it has now gained the support of over 30 democratic and republican members of congress. i also want to thank the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, for his remarks for this bill. at the outset i would also like

to thank chairman chaffetz and ranking member cummings along with the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold and the gentleman from northern virginia, mr. connolly, of the house oversight committee for their leadership in bringing h.r. 313 to the floor. i would also like to thank the many veterans groups and unions that have joined together to endor -- endorse this legislation. they include the veterans of foreign wares, american legion and the 31 unions and organizations that make up the federal postal coalition. let me also commend jennifer hemingway of the staff of the -- of the republican staff staff of the versight committee and democratic staff as well. currently a first year federal employee will begin his or her career with zero sick leave.

that's because under current law, full-time federal employees only earn four hours of paid sick leave for each pay period that they work. obviously, starting from the begin, they'll have zero balance in their sick leave bank. with the maximum of 104 hours of sick leave available per year, nevertheless, new employees start with zo. while federal workers are able to carry over unused annual sk leave from year to year, they beg their first year on the job with no sick leave whatsoever. now this lack of initial leave for newly hired federal workers is particularly burdensome on those employees who are also wounded warriors. these employees need to make regular visits to the v.a. to seek medical treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain jer and other service connected disabilities and are forced to burn up any

sick leave they do accrue in their first year at a federal agency. several wounded war yos -- warriors who have transitioned tothe federal work force following their tours of duty in iraq and afghanistan and other assignments have highlighted this diffiulty during discussionsith me and my staff. these these workers reported to me that they were routinely faced with the difficult choice between having to take a day off work without pay or simply skipping their scheduled v.a. appointments altogether. some wounded warriors reported that the closest v.a. facility to their job was located two or three hours away. as additionally noted by the federal manager's association, and this is a quote, young men and women struggle with available leave as they attempt to keep service-related medically necesry appointments whi puts undue stress on both federal managers and the federal employees as they try to meet their connolly mandated missio -- congressionall mandated

missions and goals, closed quote. we must get them medical care as they transition to serving our nation in a new capacity, to a federalivilian job. the wounded warriors federal leave act would do just that. this bill wil provide first-year federal employees who ve a v.a. disability rating of 30% or greater with 104 hours of wounded warrior leave from the moment they begin their federal work force careers. this includes eligible new hires at our nation's largest employer of veterans, the defense department, as wl as the united states postal service. h.r. 313 also recognizes these dedicated federal workers will have accumulated up to 104 hours of traditional sick leave by the end of their first year on the job, a that's why the bill also provide that any unused wounded warrior leave will not carry over beyond the second year. the wounded warrior federal leave act will provide critical importance given that mos recent federal data on

veterans' employment incates that federal agencies are hiring a growing number of veterans each yr. in fial year 2014, nearly 60,000 or 33.2% of ew hires at federal agencies were veterans. that's an increase of 9% over fiscal year 2009. and with the number of our young people who have served multiple tours of duty, three, four, five tours of duty in iraq and afghanistan, this is especially important. approximately 16,000 of newly federal employees were wounded warriors with a disability rating of 30% or greater. again, i'm thankful to mr. chaffetz, mr. walberg, mr. cummings and mr. connolly and also i want to thank mr. tester. when we sent this bill over to the senate looking for a co-sponsor in the senate, senator tester was quick to step up and take on this fight in the senate. i want to thank him for his work on this bill on the senate side. in closing, i urge all our

members to vote in favor of h.r. 1313, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to make congressman lynch aware we have no further speakers and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's kind remarks and support of this legislation as well. mr. speaker, it appears i have no further speakers as well and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i truly thank congressman lynch for his leadership on this issue. it's an issue not only whose time has come but probably should have come long before this. it's a great idea that deals with the reality of what we face in dealing with wounded warriors. and their ongoing success that this country, a grateful country ought to be involved with encouraging. i urge adoption of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house

suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 313. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass s. 568, the federal vehicle repair cost savings act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 565, an act to reduce the operation and maintenance costs associated with the federal fleet by encouraging the use of remanufactured parts, and for ther purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. yumeds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walberg: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of s.

565, the federal vehicle repair cost savings act of 2015. this bill is a bipartisan and bicameral effort designed to reduce the costs of maintenance for federal vehicle fleet. the federal vehicle repair cost savings act encourages agencies to use remanufactured components that will reduce costs and maintaining quality. the term remanufactured vehicle components refers to components that have been returned to same as new or better condition and performance by a standardized industrial process that incorporates technical specifications. in 2013, a government accountability office report found that remanufactured vehicle components, such as engines, starters, alternators, steering racks and clutches tend to be less expensive than comparable new parts. in fact, a 2012 study by the u.s. international trade

commission found that remanufactured parts can result energy gs up 85% of the and material used to manufacture equivalent new parts. further, this study found that remanufactured parts are on average 20% to 50% less expensive. requiring agency heads under this bill to encourage their federal vehicle maintenance staff to use remanufactured components will reduce maintenance costs which totaled $975 million in 2011 for 588,000 vehicles. this bill is also supported by the motor and equipment manufacturers association, which directly employs over 734,000 people in u.s. manufacturing jobs. mr. speaker, i want to thank congressman huizenga and ashford for their work on the house companion bill. i also want to thank senators

peters and lankford for their work on this legislation. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan cost savings legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of senate 564, the federal vehicle repair cost savings act, introduced by senator peters of michigan. i'd also like to recognize representative bill huizenga of michigan for his good work on this legislation. senate 565 passed the united states senate by unanimous consent last month, and with today's house passage, it can go straight to the president's desk for his signature. the federal vehicle repair cost savings act would require the head of each federal agency to encourage the use of remanufactured vehicle components. doing so would reduce the cost while maintaining highly quality. the intent behind this bill is to raise the awareness of using remanufactured parts and would

inform agency fleet managers of this cost savings option. the bill encourages the heads of federal agencies to use remanufactured parts but the decision ultimately to do so would remain at the discretion of fleet managers. according to a march, 2013, government accountability office report, federal agencies spent about $1 billion on vehicle repair and maintenance in 2011. the report also found that remanufactured vehicle components tend to be much less expensive and, for example, the postal service and the department of interior informed g.a.o. that they rely on remanufactured vehicle components to reduce cost. mr. speaker, this is a commonsense piece of legislation that seeks to save taxpayer dollars and better ensure that federal government is purchasing high-quality products. i urge members on both sides of the aisle to vote for this bill, and i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield

three minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. mr. speaker, i'd like to thank the oversight and government reform committee, especially my friend, chairman chaffetz, and my friend, mr. walberg here from michigan, as well as ranking member cummings for bringing this bipartisan, bicameral bill to the floor to save taxpayers' dollars and create jobs. i often hear, like most of us do, from our constituents, why can't congress work together and get something done and eliminate wasteful spending and create jobs? well, we got it, folks. here we go. with the federal vehicle repair cost savings act i teamed up with gary peters, also of michigan, and we'll literally save millions of taxpayers' dollar by creating good manufacturing jobs. our commonsense bill calls on federal agencies to use remanufactured components to repair and main feign the federal vehicle fleet when

using those parts with lower costs, achieve higher safety standards and maintain quality and performance. remanufactured parts are less expensive than brand new parts and have been returned in the same as new condition. i know this from firsthand experience owning a small sand and gravel business where we use remanufactured parts on our own trucks. it may be an engine, a transmission, drive train, a rear end orality nator. each of those repairs presents an opportunity to be more fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars. in 2013, g.a.o. report found that the federal government owns a fleet of approximately 588,000 vehicles. the cost of maintaining that fleet has ballooned to nearly $1 billion, and while it's clear there needs to be a fleet of these federal vehicle have access to reliable motor pool, it's important that they be maintained efficiently and effectively to make sure our tax dollars, oast most precious tax dollars, are used in the

best way possible. this legislation serves as an important boost to american jobs. goorgd to the motor equipment and manufacturers association, remanufacturing of federal vehicle parts is responsible for 30,000 full-time jobs across the united states. for example, in my district, valley truck parts, headquartered in wyoming, employs 250 michiganians. in kentwood, north american -- michigan, north american fuel systems remanufacturing, employs more than 150 people. these companies, among so many others across michigan and so many other states, demonstrate how remanufacturing supports good-paying middle-class jobs in those states like michigan and ohio and north carolina and pennsylvania and so many others. and it's going to play an expanded role, i believe, in making this federal government even more efficient. i encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort to save millions of taxpayer dollars, support good jobs and make the federal government run more efficiently. and with that i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. r. walberg: mr. speaker, i believe i heard my colleague yield back, so i'm prepared to close and with that, having heard the comments on this, i urge adoption of this commonsense bill that encourages also us doing an environmental thing as well in using resources that we have. so i ask that my colleagues support this commonsense bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 565. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3089, the grant oversight and new efficiency act, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of

the bill. the clerk: h.r. 30889, to close out expired grants, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walberg: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i introduced h.r. 3089, the grants oversight and new efficiency, or gone, act to bring much-needed accountability to the federal grant maaking process. this bipartisan bill requires each agency to report to congress on the amount of expired and empty grant accounts that remain open on the government's books. under the bill, the agencies must examine the 30 grants that have been expired for the longest period of time and explain why these grants have

not been closed. one year after this initial report, these agencies will update congress, reporting on which accounts previously identified have been closed and which remain open. these reports will help congress better understand why expired grants accounts remain open at taxpayers' expense. mr. speaker, in fiscal year 2014, federal grant expenditures exceeded $529 billion, and that's real money. this enormous amount of money demands strong financial management to protect taxpayers' accounts and dollars from waste. in 2012, g.a.o. released a report on the timeliness of the grants closeouts by federal agencies. the report found nearly $1 billion remaining in undisbursed funds within expired grants accounts. in one of the grant management

systems, g.a.o. examined there were almost 1,000 accounts that had been expired for five years or more and still had not been closed out. g.a.o. found out that this same management system contained 28,000 expired grant accounts with no funds in them. mr. speaker, expired grant ccounts these were returned to the treasury to help bring down the deficit and mounting debt. agencies pay a monthly fee for each account that remains open within the federal payment management system. as a result, agencies could be spending roughly $2 million per year to maintain these 28,000 accounts with no funds in them. accuming they have not been closed. surely we can find a better use

for these taxpayer collar -- dollars rather than wasting funds maintaining expired accounts. finally, grants that are not properly closed out slow the grant making agency from conducting the necessary oversight to ensure that funds were properly spent and that taxpayer money is not being wasted. the gone act is a response to these issues. mr. speaker, h.r. 3089 utilizes the department of health and human services to coordinate with agencies to provide these reports to congress. h.r.s. was chosen for this role because of some of its successful closeout efforts implemented in 2011. h.h.s.'s commendable work on grant closeout is exactly why we added a provision to this bill requiring h h.s. to coordinate with the office of management and budget in reporting to congress on legislate i changes needed to improve the process of

grant administration. h.r. 3089 strengthens oversight by asking the inspectors general of the largest grant making agencies to conduct a risk assessment of their agency's grant closeout processing. i thank senators fisher and mansion for their work on the senate companion bill, s. 1115, include their work on the billion -- on the bill before the house today. i urge my colleagues to bring some commonsense steps to the federal grant making process by supporting this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself susm time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: the legislation under consideration h.r. 3089, the grant oversight and efficiency act -- and new efficiency act was introduced by mr. walberg of michigan earlier this year and reported out of the house oversight committee with the support of mrs. brenda lawrence, also of michigan this month this

bill would require one-time reports from federal agencies on expired grants. as noted earlier by mr. walberg, the -- and a report by the government accountability office, federal agencies don't always close out expired grants properly. g.a.o. has found in 2011, nearly $800 million in undisbursed balances remained in expired grant accounts. that money could be returned to the treasury and spent on any number of pressing priorities here in the house. and senate. in particular, mr. walberg's bill, h.r. 3089, would require agencies to report to the secretary of health and human services and congress on grants that have expired and whether they have undisbursed balances. the bill would also require agencies to make recommendations on which grants should be closed out immediately as well as explain why certain grants were not properly closed out to begin with. i commend representatives from

michigan, both mr. walberg, our lead sponsor on this bill, and mrs. lawrence, for their work on this bipartisan bill. s that commonsense, good government measure that every member should support. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, and i thank the gentleman for his support and leadership on the floor. i thank the chairman and ranking member of our committee. most importantly, i thank my good friend and colleague from michigan, congresswoman brenda lawrence, for her support and helpful additions to this legislation. so mr. speaker, i urge adoption of this commonsense bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the howls suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3089 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and the notion reconsider s laid on the table.

-- motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3614.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3614, a bill to amend title 49 united states code to extend authorization for the airport improvement program to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lobiondo and the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 3614. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lobiondo: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to thank you, mr. speaker and on september 30, 2015, the authorization for the federal aviation administration programs and taxes that fund those programs will expire. h.r. 3614 is a clean, six-month

extension of all necessary authorizations through march 31 of 2016. as the chairman of the subcommittee on aviation, i believe it is critical for congress to come together in a bipartisan, long-term f.a.a. re-authorization bill. when the aviation subcommittee, chairman shuster and i have great working partnerships with congressman defazio and congressman larson. and i want to thank congressman defazio and congressman larson for their bipartisan cooperation in this very important area. without an extension, the f.a.a. will not be able to spend funds from the airport and airway trust fund. therefore, airport construction projects across the country will be halted, contractors that support f.a.a. will not be paid. construction jobs will be lost. and thousands of f.a.a. employees could be furloughed. in my district in new jersey, i have the privilege of

representing approximately 4,000 f.a.a. employees and contractors who work at the f.a.a.'s premier technical center in the nation, they contribute an extraordinary amount of energy and dedication to making sure that aviation continues to move forward. without them, the state of aviation in our country would suffer and we could not afford them to be at home because we failed to do our work and pass an extension bill. a lapse in authorization will also result in the halt of certification and registration of new aviation products, greatly disrupting the aviation manufacturing industry and jeopardizing more good paying jobs. the f.a.a.'s aircraft registry would cose -- close, delaying deliveries of new aircraft. as many as 10,000 aircraft a month could be grounded if registration cannot be renewed. h.r. 3614 will allow us to continue developing a bipartisan, long-term re-authorization bill which will

improve, rebuild and modernize our nation's safe, yet highly antiquated aviation system. with that, i urge support of h.r. 3614 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: i agree with my good friend, the gentleman from new jersey that it's essential senate h.r. 3614 and the pass it expeditiously and it be signed by the president. we cannot afford even, you know, the thought of a shutdown of the f.a.a. we have actually gone down that road in the past. chairman mica in july of 2011 put some provisions into an f.a.a. re-authorization that were objectionable to two very powerful senators and we went

through a shutdown. now, what we lost was $400 million of revenue because the excise tax expired. one airline, to give them credit, did pass the savings through, the excise tax, the last airline, all the other airlines kept the money. and we lost $400 million from the trust fund. capital programs ground to a halt. airport construction ground to a halt. threatening tens of thousands of jobs. airport inspectors had to work, they were essential employees, they weren't paid and they couldn't get government vouchers so they had to use their personal credit cards to purchase tickets to go to work to do their job which they weren't being paid for. i mean, this was the ultimate of absurdity. and i only go into some detail on that because that's relevant to this extension. this is a six-month ex-mention. that should give us more than

ample time -- extension. that should give us more than ample time to agree on a long-term f.a. ample authorization, much work -- f.a.a. authorization. much work has been done on major portions of the bill but some disagreements remain over the future of the air traffic organization. my preference would be to insulate the entire f.a.a. from future vi cisse tuesday of congress going awe -- vicissitudes of corning going off the rail work shutdowns and furloughs, so the senate could cause a temporary lapse in authorization. and you know, we can get there. we're very close now. this year, all but 7% of the f.a.a.'s budget will be paid for by user fees. exeeze taxes and others. so we're quite -- excise taxes and others. so we're quite close. we'd like to reform procurement, streamline it, make it work

better. when i was a young member of congress i got to witness the airport, air traffic controllers work station of the future. that was 1987. it's 2015rks they don't have them yet. he f.a.a. is the -- the -- 2015, they don't have them yet. the f.a.a. is the only one worse at procurement than the pentagon. we've got to try something to get it to be more agile to give us the 21st century equipment and software we need. then there's issues of the actual shape of the f.a.a. bureaucracy, a little bit like that in the middle. congress also in, back in 1996, gave the f.a.a. license to reform personnel practices to deal with some of that mid level management bulge and streamline the agency and decision making process but that didn't take either. so the three problems, that is, you know, the predictability of

funding and the agency being able to look into the future without having to worry about shutdowns, furloughs, i don't know how much time they spent over the last couple of weeks getting ready for this shutdown everyone thought would come this week before speaker boehner announced his retirement. that's got to be dealt with. and then also the procurement reform and the personnel. the chairman's solution is to separate only the air traffic organization from the f.a.a. and insulate that from congress and those sorts of problems and make it, you know, free of the procurement rules and a lot of the personnel rules. i would prefer to do that with the entire agency because there are functions, we do have the best air traffic control system in the world. we are busier in the u.s. with more planes under flight rules on a daily basis, about 20% more on the i.f.r. average than the

combined of canada, u.k., france and germany. so we know we have a safe system. we move massive amounts of air traffic. we don't want to mess that up. and i understand. but i also don't think we can isolate it from other decisionmakers in the agency and leave them subject to the vicissitudes of congress, the people who do the inspections and the safety. it seems to me we should all be moved and i proposed a 21st century constitutionally chartered corporation in order to accomplish those goals and make it self-funding, self-sufficient, and not subject to appropriation or shutdowns or anything else that a future congress might imagine. that's the hangup. we haven't agreed on that part yet. but i think we can. we share a common objective. and six months should be more than ample time, i'm hopeful that early this fall the chairman and i can resolve those issues with other mens of the

committee and then we can go forward with our colleagues in the senate and hopefully have, you know, a bill on the president's desk, you know, early next year if not by the end of this year, although december promises to be pratches a bit chaotic around -- promises to be perhaps a bit chaotic around here. six months should be ample time. i do not anticipate multiple short-term extensions. don't want them, nor does the chairman, nor do i believe any other thoughtful members of the committee, i see the gentleman from new jersey shaking his head, we've been down that road before, down that runway before. we don't want to go down that runway again. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves this gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield to t