of the united states prison population? the war on drugs began in the early 1970's. we have less than 350,000 people incarcerated in america. currently, that number is in excess of 2.3 million. we've got 5% of the worlds population. 25% of the incarcerated individuals in the world are here in the united states. many of us believe it creates a competitive disadvantage for us going forward. in addition to the damage it does to the social fabric of many communities. can you comment as to the mass incarceration phenomenon in america and what should be done about it from a public safety standpoint? director comey: i struggle with the word mass incarceration because it conveys a sense that people were locked up en masse. every case is a tragedy in my

view, but every case is individual. everyone had to be proven guilty. a lot of people are locked up and that is a big problem, but here's the fact. in 2014, america was f safer than it was when i was born in 1960. i think a big part of that change is due to law enforcement. i'm of the view that yes, we can reform our criminal justice system, but we've got to reform it with an eye towards where we used to be. i would not want to give back to our grandchildren the america we lived in in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. i believe we can be better in a lot of ways. >> i think it is important for us to be thoughtful. i grew up in new york city in the 1980's, in the midst of the crack cocaine epidemic, 2000 homicides in the city. no one wants to return to that.

that in all 17ed states that have cut incarceration rates, they've experienced a decline in crime over the past decades. it seems to me that there is room based on the data for a real discussion as to how to get the balance correct. i gather you share that view. i appreciate your willingness to continue a dialogue for us to get the benefit of your views. director comey: thank you. >> i yield back. --i now recognize mr. >> can i be recognized for a point of personal privilege? >> without objection. >> i'm a student of history and when i make a mistake, i want to correct it. i was wrong in saying that senator vanderburgh son committed suicide. it was senator hayes. his son was arrested in lafayette park for being gay,

but that was mccarthy who was after him. i want to correct the record. thank you. >> i now recognize mr. desantis for five minutes. >> good afternoon, director comey. companies have begun notifying customers when law enforcement requests data through subpoena or warrant unless there is a nondisclosure requirement, particularly for child pornography investigations, this may be an issue. do you think that could hamper investigations? director comey: i do. it is something i have been hearing more and more about. >> i'm glad to hear you say that. the president has a plan to bring over a lot of people from the civil war in syria, perhaps as many as 100,000. can we vet them, and if not, isn't it just a fact that some of those people will be contributing to some of the

homegrown terrorism in this country? director comey: thank you for the question. it is a very important issue. we can vet them. we've gotten better at vetting and learned lessons from the vetting of iraqi refugees. we can only vet against data that's been collected with respect to a person. the information we had for iraq was much richer than we will have for syria. >> so there's a problem here, potentially. i know it's going to fall on you to defend the american people it is something i'm concerned with. there's been talk about reforming. people sayview that drug offenses are nonviolent, but when they get into the federal system, trafficking, is it accurate to say they are nonviolent? director comey: i guess each

case is different. in my experience, anyone who's part of a trafficking organization is part of an organization that has violence all through it. whether you are a runner, lookout, or enforcer, you are part of something that is suffocating a community. i have a hard time categorizing drug organizations as nonviolent. >> in terms of the drop in crime that you alluded to, is part of that simply because there have been stiffer sentences and so habitual criminals are off the street? director comey: i believe that was a big part. i believe most experts believe it was a big part of the historic reduction in crime over my career. >> with respect to individual offenses, there's been mishandling of information, does the fbi keep records of all the investigations related to each offense? director comey: i don't know

that it is searchable by each offense. if a case was charged, the offenses would be reflected. >> in other words, we know every mishandling of classified information offense. we can look that up. but we don't know whether the u.s. attorney declined x number of cases pertaining to that? director comey: i think that's correct. i also don't know what our records would reflect if there are a number of violations in a case, whether it would be clear that it was that. >> in terms of handling classified information, there's been stuff in the press about, something needs to be marked classified. is your understanding that the u.s. code, if i were to send classified information over an unsecure system, the fact that

it was not marked classified, does that mean i have not committed the offense? director comey: i think i would prefer not to answer, trying to make sure that given we have a matter under investigation that relates to that topic, that i preserve our ability to be honest, independent, and competent. i worry that i could jeopardize that. >> i think that's an admirable posture. , when the president renders a judgment about a case, saying there's no national security damage if certain information has been disclosed, how does that help the investigation? the three things i said earlier, honest, competent, and independent. we follow the facts, only the facts. doubt that that will be how you conduct yourself.

i just hope that as you do your work, as it moves on to other aspects of our system, that it's based on the merits of the case and not based on political edict from on high. thank you for your time. recognize -- >> thank you. director, thank you very much. you appeared yesterday in front of the homeland security committee and added a great deal of insight. i like to not pursue a line of questioning, but hope to have an opportunity to meet with you on something we began discussing yesterday, cyber security and the role it plays as an all most another figure, if you will, in the scheme of terrorism. i and the ranking member of the subcommittee, with my ranking

member and chairman, we are looking to be responsible in addressing issues in the criminal justice system, and somewhat overlapping the question of terrorism in this committee, and certainly in homeland security. let me quickly start with a question that i think i introduced in the record yesterday, no-fly for foreign fighters. we heard testimony that indicated the numbers might be going down. i had notes that there was 250 americans who had left to the foreign fight and may be coming back. we must always be prepared. was one thatnario we had never imagined before. we never imagined an airplane being used as a torpedo. we imagined a hijacking. we lived through that.

i know that this is a very serious posture. hopefully, any extra tool that we can give you with respect to refining and defining the list that you have, to make sure that we have every potential -- every foreign fighter, would that be helpful to you? director comey: yes. we want to make sure the list is comprehensive. legislatione this to ensure that that list is a vetted and well-updated list, would that be helpful? director comey: i don't know the legislation, but the goal, i share. >> i appreciate that very much. guns. move now to the i don't want to put words in your mouth, but i imagine, and i

served as a municipal court say, whod i'd have to are you? dealing with some matters in local government, they were in some tough places. i recognize the dangers that our officers face. we had a horrific tragedy in houston. we just recently lost an officer again in new york. with others who are impacted by guns, the 11-year-old who shot another-old, and old, weer, three-years never can imagine the ability of our children. i ask you a question, why law enforcement is not our biggest control, not on gun

gun safety regulations. not on diminishing the second amendment, but responsibly handling weapons. who would want to lose a four-year-old in a drive-by shooting in new mexico because someone had a gun? introduced legislation, and you might want to comment on this in particular, that gives you an extended period of time on this gun check situation, which was one of the horrible situations in the south carolina nine. the system was doing its work, but since you weren't heard from , they allowed this gentleman to get a gun and kill nine people. we have a number of legislative initiatives. members of congress don't want anything to do with taking away your gun.

they want to regulate safety infrastructure. i've introduced legislation to keep guns away from children. in your dealing with law enforcement, the impact guns have, the impact on the work you all do, could you answer that for me, please? there have been a number of church fires. we keep ignoring it. we had another series before. would you comment on the fbi's work that they are doing? down, take this name rodney colan, who was killed on his front porch, a driveway of his home -- excuse me, let me stand corrected. lives wounded and still with a bullet in his liver.

aspect is thatng it was an officer who mistook him as an african-american male in a stolen car. he was in his mother's car, going home to his house in houston, texas. is, what further fbi investigation can go into this case? i thank you for your indulgence. director comey: thank you, ms. jackson lee. i will look into the last matter. with respect to church fires, we have not ignore them. our agents are investigating a number of incidents around the country. we have not found patterns that connect to our civil rights enforcement work. with respect to guns, people in the fbi care deeply about trying to stop gun violence.

will the bureau does not do is get involved in public policy legal questions. our job is to enforce the law. we leave it to the department of justice to make suggestions. we are passionate about trying to enforce the law against bad guys with guns of all kinds, especially in our cities, where gun violence is increasingly a plague this year. >> the proliferation of guns and dangers law enforcement, does it not? >> but gentlelady's time has expired. guns in theey: hands of criminals and danger all of us, including law enforcement. >> thank you. >> i think all of us would agree with that. i'll recognize myself for five minutes. i want to thank you for being here. many people at the committee have recognized your unbiased attitude towards enforcing the law as written.

i think that speaks very highly of you. i've been impressed with the cogency and clarity of your testimony this morning. i believe the commitment to independent enforcement of the law is a genuine and sincere conviction on your part. -- the department of justice has investigated past allegations of possible violations, and i know you've touched on this before, so forgive me for rehashing it, possible violations of the partial-birth abortion ban act. 2015letter dated august 4, responding to this committee's request for an investigation of possible violations of the partial-birth abortion ban act by planned parenthood, the department of justice stated that since the inception of the act, the department has invested

allegations with facilities that are related to possible violations of that law. is there any current relatedation by the fbi to planned parenthood and the footage that's been released by the center for medical progress at this time that you know of? director comey: i will get back to you and let you know. as i sit here now, i don't have a strong enough grasp of where that stands. i do know letters were sent to the department of justice. i'll get back to you. >> as far as you know, even apart from the planned parenthood videos, do you know of any partial birth abortion ban investigations by the fbi? director comey: i don't. i believe we have, but i don't know enough to answer that well right here. >> i would appreciate that last part being included in any

response you have. there's some of us that think the rule of law applies to these little ones that have so little ability to protect themselves as well. let me shift gears. there's been several questions asked today about gun violence. i agree with your last answer completely, that we want to do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. it is vital for the safety of the public. there are those of us that would ask law enforcement, do we think it would be wise to take guns out of the hands of law enforcement? almost no one would suggest that. guns inve, i do, that the hands of properly trained fbi agents is a protection to the public. from my perspective, that would suggest it is not the guns, it is whose hands they are in. it is hard to make a case that if they are a protective measure

in the hands of police officers, that they are something that can protect and prevent violence, that they are a good thing, and that all of us from almost every spectrum of political consideration would suggest that , then the obvious reason becomes that it is indeed not the guns, but whose hands they are in. is, how do we you separate the argument so that we are doing everything we can to prevent those who have lost their second amendment rights, who have demonstrated violence toward society, or an issue with mental illness, how do we deal with that while still leaving intact the right to own and their arms under the second amendment by those who follow the law? i think that's a

question for others, including congress. such, i think is it is very important that not be a debate we participate in. we don't make policy for the american people. the american people tell us what they think the law should be. we will enforce the law. i think that is critical to us remaining honest, competent, and independent. it is not a conversation i think the fbi should participate in professionally. >> that is a reasonable answer. i hope that we can do that. end myat, i'm going to question time. do we have -- yes, we do. mr. bishop is not here. oh, i'm sorry. mr. bishop, you're recognized

for five minutes. flying under the radar. i was here earlier. i apologize for stepping out. and your thank you entire team, because what you do on a daily basis is something that most of us don't even know about. we can't comprehend. you keep us safe and we are grateful for what you do. on behalf of my family, my constituents, i'm grateful to you and your entire department. wanted to tell you that. i admire your testimony today. thank you for your candor. you've been here forever. i thought maybe i'd ask you about syrian refugees and what we're seeing. is a hugef michigan hub for those of middle eastern dissent. -- middle eastern descent.

there is concern about refugees in our country. you, how do we refugees coming to our country? is there a way to do it that we can rely upon? my office does a lot of immigration work. we work with those who are attempting to emigrate legally every day and we help them anyway we can to get through the hoops. it is very strange that we now have groups that are coming in the way they are, that really skip all those steps in between. i'm wondering if you could share your experience and what you know about the process. director comey: it's a process i described as good news and bad news. athave gotten much better organizing ourselves so that we get a complete picture of what

we know about somebody. we learned some lessons from iraqi refugees eight years or so ago. we've gotten better. if there's a ripple this person has created in our pond, i'm confident we will see it. the bad news is, we will have less data with respect to folks coming out of syria then we did with iraq. we don't have the u.s. army presence that would give us biometrics. the risk is that someone who is a blank slate to us will be vetted in a process that is complete but will show no sign of anything because they never crossed our radar. that's why i described it as a process that has gotten better, but we can't tell you is risk-free. >> as time goes on, the process that you are going through will be more apparent to the american people. there are a lot of folks in my concerned.re very

that level of unknown, of not understanding the process, has caused a little panic across the district. the more we can here, the more we understand what the process is. we remember the iraqi refugees in the state of michigan, especially my area. i appreciate your ongoing communication. i want to switch gears with you real quick. i've had the pleasure of working with a number of youth-serving organizations and one of those is here today. it is important work they do. i've spoken to some of them about the importance of keeping their kids safe. one of the ways they do that is getting background checks. it ensures so many different ways of fostering a safe environment. it is an issue i feel deeply about. can you talk about the value of

including national fbi fingerprint background checks as part of the comprehensive screening of staff and volunteers? there are so many that are right there with our children. we know that the fbi background check is the gold standard of the process. can you share a little bit about how we can promote that and encourage that? director comey: thank you, congressman. if i remember correctly, we've been doing a pilot program on that topic at our criminal oftice information systems operation, which i believe is the gold standard. anybody who wants to ensure that people in contact with children have been checked out, the best way to do it is working with us. as an exciting new feature that is coming on now, we are building in something called rap back. y somebody as a

daycare provider, if they are ever again arrested, you will be notified. that will make a big difference and make the gold standard platinum in a way. i very much agree with your sentiment. back? you say rap director comey: rap back. someone develops a rap sheet, we get back. >> ok. thank you for your time. >> i think the gentleman. my apologies for missing you the first time. i now recognize mr. ratcliffe for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, thanks for being here. i want to ask you a couple cyber security issues. i do want to follow up on a question i asked at the homeland security committee yesterday.

we had a brief exchange about the president's decision to take in 10,000 syrian refugees. a 500% or 600% increase over five years. humanitarian concerns aside, i was troubled with respect to national security. particularly because isis has said it would use, or would try to use, the refugee process to get into the united states. our own databases don't have information on some of these individuals, so there are gaps of intelligence. we had a discussion about that figure of 10,000 yesterday. if you had been the sole decider on that issue, what would you have recommended to the president? director comey: i don't know.

i'm pleased to say it's not my job to recommend that to the president. >> i know the fbi is not a policymaking body with respect to that issue, but as you recall, we had a discussion, i asked secretary johnson the same thing, and he assured me there was an interagency process. i guess what i'm trying to get at, is this a figure the administration presented to you and said, meet the security obligations that come with this, or was this part of a process where there was actually input from folks like you that should be providing input on what that number would be? director comey: i think there was plenty of the input from the fbi and intelligence community on how we thought about the good news and the bad news. know if icall, don't

could say if i did recall, how a number came up. it wouldn't have come from the fbi. >> you understand the concern, that we would hope these concision's -- these decisions were driven by intelligence, rather than political reasons that is why i asked the question. in your written testimony, you said you wanted to get this right. you set the actual crime problem is cyber-based or facilitated. that sink in for everybody, because it is such an forrtant point for us and the fbi, and it really speaks to the gravity of an issue that you are facing an element of a cyber aside -- threat.

the major challenges that you face in detecting and prosecuting cybercrime at the fbi? director comey: thank you for that question and thank you for the bringing of that issue and for your leadership there. the question is the folks and the equipment. the bad guysder, have very sophisticated equipment. we want to make sure we have world-class systems and we have great people to operate them and that is a challenge when we are facing a cyber security industry oft will play -- pay a lot young folks a lot of dough. those are the two big focus is for us. mr. ratcliffe: so the insider threat has been described i at

as a threat to businesses that operate in cyberspace. threatthe scale of that in response to edward snowden. i know the department of justice has asked congress for clarity forhe law in this area, assistance in prosecuting insiders who access sensitive data that they are not authorized to. i want to give you an opportunity to elaborate on that from your perspective. director comey: it's an important part of the threat, that is absolutely true. i don't know what the department's questions and concerns are about their legislative authority on that front, so i don't think i can offer anything useful there. mr. ratcliffe: ok. is expired and like everybody else, i want to express my thanks. i had the opportunity to work for you both what you are the

acting attorney general and when you were the- when deputy general, and i have great confidence in you and i am grateful for your continuing service. i am grateful for the fact that you are in the director's chair and the you are making such important questions about security. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. chairman: i would like to echo those comments and we are grateful that you are on the job. this will conclude today's hearing. we would like to thank our distinguished witness and thanked the audience for being here and without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional questions for the witness or a decisional -- or additional information for the record. they queue, director -- thank you, director comey. meeting adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: tonight on c-span, the house debates a budget deficit bill that includes repealing parts of the affordable care act. president obama has vetoed the annual defense program hill -- bill, and director james comey

testifies. friday's "washington journal" will be dedicated entirely to your reaction to hillary clinton's testimony before the house benghazi committee. we will have two hours of your phone calls, tweets, and facebook comments. a.m.gins friday at 7:00 eastern time live here on c-span. --president obama: we have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by congress on an economic issue like health clear, at least since lautner. if thener would decide court could take away your life and liberty. announcer: this week on "

landmark cases," we look at loch ner v. new york. workerstricted bakery to 10 hours a day. ner broke thatoch law. he took his case all the way to the supreme court. find why this case is so important. the professional of constitutional law at the -- georgetown university law center, randy barnett, discusses along with paul kens, a political science professor from texas state university. an3, andn, c sent -- csp c-span radio. announcer: today, the house debated a bill on the health

care law and it would defund planned parenthood for one year. the house is scheduled to vote on the bill tomorrow. the beginning of the debate with the rules committee. this is 45 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. i'd like to yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: i'd also like to ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: i want to start with the end of what our reading clerk read before i get to the excitement at the beginning. at the end what you heard was some blanket authority to consider what i'll call housekeeping measures here in the house and not because

republicans say so, not because democrats say so, but because republicans and democrats come together, consult with one another, and try to find those issues on which we agree to bring forward. i sit on the rules committee, mr. speaker. the best thing that happens in this institution is when a bill comes through the rules committee because my colleague miss daughter and i always make it better. we always make it bert, but we include authority to avoid the rules committee for some of these issues that are going to come to the floor fast and furious. here we are at the end of the cycle, leadership change here in the house, you don't know what might happen and what the rules committee did last night was to create a pathway to allow the house to continue its business at a moment's notice. i'm glad that we included that provision in here. we also included same day consideration authority, mr. speaker. one of the things that happened when the big freshman class that i was elected with in 2010 came, as we said for pete's sakes we need time to read the bills. we need to follow the rules and

make sure that all members have a chance to get deep into the information and legislation. that persists still today. we have a process today that allows members to get involved in that legislation. but we still have those emergency times here in this chamber where something has to happen in a hurry. whether we are talking about borrowing authority, spending authority. whether we are talking about something for our troops, something for our veterans, things still happen on a moment's notice. what we have included in here is the ability to bring things re quickly to the floor here in the next short period of time. that's important from a housekeeping perspective, mr. speaker, but that's not what's important about this rule today. what's important about this rule today is that 4 1/2 years ago the people of the great state of georgia, 7th distrirkts sent me to congress -- district sent me to congress, and i was placed on the budget committee in this congress. the budget committee, the

committee that writes the framework by which the entire $3.5 trillion federal government is funded. we got together and worked hard here in the house, mr. speaker, and we produced the budget but the senate did nothing. i came back that second year, 2012, we worked hard here in the house, together we produced a budget, but the senate did nothing. came back again, 2013, worked hard here in the house, produced a budget, but the senate produced nothing. mr. speaker, what we are here today to do, what we are here today to do is made possible for one reason and one reason only and that is because for the first time since 2001 republicans and democrats came together in the house, republican and democratsing came together in the senate. we passed a budget. they passed a budget. we concernsed a -- conferenced a budget and america has a banced budget under which it lives under for the first time. in 15 years. for the first te in 15 years. what does that mean?

it's not all that eiting to read the budget, mr. speaker. i recommend it to you if you haven't gotten in the details, recommend it to anybody who hasn't gotten into the details. that's not what's exciting. it's not the numbers, what's excite something because we came together, not because we had our ideas and they had their ideas, but because we came together we triggered a process called reconciliation. now, i'm saddened that reconciliation is now in the lecon of the american people. it's not an importa word that folks need to know except for the fact that it gives us access to do things on their behalf that we wouldn't be able to do before. i'm so pleased that the secretary of the senate sent that message over right before we got up to say that the nate has just acted on two pieces of houseegislation. one of those enacted with no amendments, that's going to b on the way to the president's desk. one done with amendments, 'll have to consider that again. but so often we do such good work, the 435 of us together in this chamber, and it does not

get past a senate filibuster. mr. speaker, the filibuster is designed to protect the rights of the minority, republicans use it when they are in the minority. democrats use it when they are in the minority. people's ents the business from moving forward. not so today. not so today. because we got together in the house with a budget and the senate in the budget, we brought a budget together, we are now in the process of reconciliation which allows us to have the people's will be done. 51 ves in the senate now will move legislation forward as it relates to balancing the budget. you remember admiral mullen, he said, mr. speaker, the greatest threat to american national security wasn't a military threat, he said it was our federal budget deficit. we have done such an amazing job collaboratively in this chamber working on the 1/3 of the budget pie called discretionary spending. that's the spending we have to work on here every year. what we have failed to do together is work on the 2/3 of

the pie called mandatory spending. where the real growth in those budget programs occurs. but that failure ends today. with the passage of this rule, we will move to consider the first reconciliation package that has come to congress in the 4 1/2 years that i have been here. made possible by the first balanced budget agreement that congress has come to since 2001. mr. speaker, this is why, this is why i came to congress and we are doing this together here today. let me tell you what's in this bill. i have seen it described in the press as a complete and total repeal of the president's health care bill. that's nonsense. i would support such an effort if we could bring such an effort to the floor. but that's not what this bill is today. what this bill is today is a group of commonsense budget saving spending reprioritizing measures. give you an example. there's a medical excise tax the president's health care law put into effect.

it's 2.3%. it's an excise tax. a gross receipts tax on all medical innovation in this country as it relates to devicings. -- devices. we all know the power to tax is the power to destroy. there is not one member this this chamber who votes to destroy medical innovation, not one. not one. but back at the time when the congressional budget office said the president's health care bill was going to cost $1 trillion, the president said i'm not going to spend a penny more than $1 trillion. i'm going to make sure it's paid for. turns out medical innovation was a place we could look. we see now in retrospect was a terrible idea. much like the other nine bills theyed passed in the house, they passed in the senate the senate signed of the law to repeal various parts of the health care law. this is another. we can do this together here today made possible by this first budget agreement we have had since 2001. the cadillac tax it's called, mr. speaker. another provision this bill

will repeal. it's a cadillac tax, mr. speaker. as we all know cadillac is a fine american automobile. you get in the cadillac, you feel good. we call the cadillac tax because it's on health care plans that are too good, too good, turns out, mr. speaker, there are some labor unions in this country that are taking too good a care of their members. turns out there are some businesses in this country that are looking after their health care needs of their employees too much. we want to keep that down. the last thing we want in this contry, apparently, are folks having health care that's too good. i tell people all the time, mr. speaker, i can make everybody in this country poor. i can't pass law to make everybody rich. we are so good at dumbing down the system for everybody. that's what this cadillac tax was designed to do. the labor unions don't like it. employers don't like it. we all know it's not the right thing to do. in a bipartisan way we have introduced legislation to repeal it. this bill, this rule gives us an opportunity to actually send

that to the president's desk. mr. speaker, i won't go on and on about all the good things in this bill. i'm sure my colleague from new york is going to highlight a lot of those herself. i don't want to steal all the thunder. but we are here because 435 of us came together here. 100 came together there. and america is operating under a conferenced budget. not just a budget, but a balanced budget. for the first time since 2001. a lot of disappointments come out of washington, d.c., mr. speaker, but we are here on the floor today talking about one of those things we get to celebrate. one of those successes on behalf of the families back home that we have done together. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, mr. speaker. good morning -- good afternoon. i thank my good friend for yielding me the time. i really enjoy serving with him

on the rules committee because he's always so cheerful. and puts such a good face on everything. and heaven knows we can use that in the world. but the truth is, mr. speaker, and my colleague knows it, that by taking away the funding for the health care act, you are killing the health care act. and that means that people would go back to not having pre-existing conditions covered. that means that women in eight states and the district of columbia would face the fact that their insurance companies consider domestic violence to be a pre-existing condition, which translates out if you are beaten up once, maybe she'll cover you. second time it's obviously your fault. you have that propensity. we can't go back to that. rising costs of health care with so many americans using the most expensive kind of health care in the world, the emergency room. this -- we are told that if

this were to pass that 13 million americans would lose their health care, but the fact of the matter, mr. chairman, this is not going to pass. we know that. as a matter of fact, i find myself saying over and over again the very same things. i remember saying the 35th vote. the 40th vote. this, mr. speaker, is the 61st vote using tax money and wasting time to take health care away from people. now, i have asked many, many times in the rules committee, what is this great urge to prohibit people from having access to health care? the best i can come up with it -- with is they don't care about those people, but they want to do something to upset the president. there was a good deal of talk yesterday that if we could add a few amendments on here it would really cause him grief.

it's not going to cause him any grief if this should pass, the senate should pass it, which is in control of the republicans, if you complain about them not passing a bill, take it up with them, but what we are going to be doing is the president will veto it, and you know very good and well that we don't have the votes here to override. so we are wasting time. . money, millions of dollars that has been spent for these 61 bills. but let's throw something else, defund planned parent hood for one year. why? i don't know. three committees in the house of representatives are studying planned parenthood and we have to look to a select committee which will go over the same thing over and over again and come up with a conclusion that congressman chaffetz came up after they grilled the president

of planned parenthood that there was nothing there, that they broke no law. i don't know why the american public is outraged that none of their business is taken care of but over and over and over again we talk about taking health care away from people. one in five american women and men have used planned parenthood and do today and add to that 13 million people that will lose their health care should this become law, three million of them children. now what should we shall doing? how about the export-import bank. it puts money back into the treasury and allows small companies in the united states to be able to export their goods to other countries. and the loss of that bank has already received from both general electric and boeing, that they are going to take jobs out of the united states because we don't have it. there is no reason not to have

it. it doesn't cost us anything. it makes us money, but just for some members of congress, they just don't like it. now this is the same majority that has produced no highway bill. we are on the road to nowhere. first time i was in congress, highway bill was always bipartisan. but we have roads and bridges crumbling, no high-speed rail, the airports are overcrowded but we are working on something to do about the health care bill and planned parenthood. this is the same majority that brought us seven legislative days risking the full faith and credit of the united states and what that means is that we are refusing or the majority is to bring up a bill here to pay the debt that they have already incurred. it is the congress that spends the money. and now they decided they don't want to pay for it and putting

that off. we have heard talk that tomorrow we are supposed to have a bill, but we all know because we all hear what's going on, there are only 170 votes for that bill. so we may not see it. so what we are going to do today is give everybody in the house of representatives an opportunity to protect the full faith and credit of the united states and not risk another shutdown, downgrade, rather, of our credit rating. to downgrade the credit rating of the united states was something that all previous congresseses felt it was an impossible thing for them to allow. while this is festering out there and nothing being done about it, we are hurling toward another shutdown in id-december.

now according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the reconciliation bill before us would take health care away from 16 million, three million children, most of them don't have any health care at all before the a.c.a. was passed and it will defund planned parent hood and endanger the health of men and women all over the country. if we have haven't seen that enough, this defunds planned parenthood. three weeks ago, we stood on the floor that they threatened to shut down the government over the funding of the planned parenthood. the american public gave a

message to congress, don't do it. in fact nearly seven in 10 americans oppose a government shutdown over planned parenthood funding according to a poll. now with this 61st vote to dismantle the a.c.a., it doesn't say we are going to kill this thing but take the money away from it. you know if you take the money away, you will have killed that bill. we understand that. as the majority continues to beat their head up against the brick wall, the american people get the head ache. this reconciliation bill takes health care away from 16 million americans and second, attacks women's health by defunding planned parenthood. i believe that governing in this body is a serious job with serious consequences. to rinksmanship is danger

our economy and unsettling to our nation. the last time the majority shut down the government over the debt limit, it took $24 billion out of this economy. and the consequences of this kind of brinksmanship are real and not imagined. we have been through it once. why in the world would we self-inflict that wound on ourselves again? we should not be pushed to the edge over and over again. we should be planning what we need to do, follow regular order. my dear colleague, mr. woodal, talked about how well democrats and republicans work together. i don't know where that is. i know the chair of the benghazi talked about seven members, but there are 12 on there, the five democrats on there do not

signify with them. we need to focus on the urgent needs of the nation and not manufacture crises that they are insisting on creating. to address the real issue, we got to plan to allow us to pay the bills that this congress has incurred and protect the full faith and credit of the united states. we always call for this -- we do something called the previous question, and this today, what we are doing, when the previous question on this rule vote is called, i hope that every member who wants to do something about the debt limit and the full faith and credit of the united states will vote no so our side can bring this up and give everybody the opportunity to go home for a weekend. by the time we get back here next week, there will be fewer legislative days to deal with it. our troops, national security, the whole federal government and most of the people in the united states are very much concerned

with what will happen if it shuts down. let's relieve us of that burden and vote today to deal with the debt limit. i invite all members to vote for the democrats' clean, simple bill. it doesn't do anything about taking away regulations from the government. it deals with the most important matter at hand at this point, and that is the full faith and credit of the united states. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i confess, i was going through my papers and i thought i would come down here on the wrong bill hearing my friend describe it. if you listen to that description and believe it, you ought to vote no, but it's just not true. it's just not true. i'll go line by line a little bit. you won't find a c.b.o. document over there that says it is going

to take health care away from 16 million. you won't found a document the underlying bill is going to take health care away because such a document does not exist. c.b.o. said that it would provide health care for 16 million americans and the president has joined with this house and that senate nine times to repeal errant provisions of that health care bill and that's what we are going to do in this legislation today. you won't find any language that suggests that house resolution 483 is going to deal with pre-existing conditions whatsoever, nor will you find any paper that suggests the underlying h.r. 1162 is going to set back the pre-existing conditions. the president led on the issue of pre-existing conditions much like a great georgia of this house, newt gingrich and bill clinton did in 1996.

they outlawed pre-existing conditions for federally-regulated plans. the president said if states haven't done it on their own, we are going to do it. the president president won that debate and i think that's a success for families with pre-existing diseases and something else we ought to be celebrating and not holding our heads low about. mr. speaker, when the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff tells you that the debatest threat to america's national security is our budget deficit and at the time that i arrived here in congress in 2010, america was running its largest budget deficits in american history, three times the size that they are today, i tell you a bill like this that goes after those deficit numbers is a critically important bill. it is the business that my constituents back home sent me

to be about in this institution. in the 4 1/2 years that the folks in my district, we have brought budget deficits down each and every year. each and every year, year after year after year after year. but that's been primarilyly on that discretionary one-third of the pie we talked about. there is so much more work to be done and reconciliation is the tool we use to get around the filibuster and allow the people's will to be done with simple majorities on both sides of the hill. good news, if you don't believe what is in the underlying bill is good for america, you can vote no. if 1% of your colleagues agree, this bill will not go forward. this is good news. when it goes over to the senate, if the senate does not believe this is good policy for america and 51 senators vote against it, this bill will not go to the

president's desk. but that's not going to happen because there is good policy in the underlying bill and this will go to the president's desk. if the president is contemplating vetoing the national defense authorization act and that may be happening as we are standing here now, that bill that provides funding for all of our troops, i can't possible apply predict what he will do when this bill arrives on his desk. what my friend from new york fails to mention, when she mentions 61 times in this house we have dealt with trying to clean up the messes that the affordable care act has created, nine of those times, the president goode with us. it is critically important, mr. speaker. we get wrapped around the rtisan axle in ways that are discouraging to me. it's not just a proposition about us, about us, 320 million

of us. and nine times so far, mr. speaker, just in the short time that i have been in congress, the house, the senate and the president have gotten together have said the affordable care act is broken and together we can begin to fix it. i believe this is one of those opportunities as well. it will be a tremendous vote on passing this rule and begin debate on passing the legislation. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: let me yield 30 seconds and say once again, no, they don't say we are going to take away pre-existing conditions but the funding for the bill. when the funding goes away, it dice. most americans understand that. and i yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from michigan, the distinguished ranking member member of the judiciary

committee. mr. conyers. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, we are here today to discuss the rule for reconciliation, which i believe we are wasting on a doomed attempt to repeal obamacare for the 61st time that we are doing this again for the 61st time is a problem. but that we are wasting our one shot at budget reconciliation on this is a tremendous shame. and we should use -- be using this opportunity to avoid the senate filibuster to actually make law, not make a point to our bases. and the way to do this is by focusing on a bipartisan issue, cancelling the sequester. the sequester is a unique problem in american public

policy, a program that is intentionally designed to be a bad idea. cripples the programs that made progress andury of weakens the greatest military. it's bad for us at home and bad for us overseas. is a blundering approach to deficit reduction and what supposed to push this congress to compromise. unfortunately, we have not otten there because of a few that refuse to give up this hostage. it isn't this body that is paying the ransome but the american people of all walks of life. it is the millions of workers, businesses, public servants and soldiers who are facing

uncertainty and inadequate support. . canceling the sequester is something both sides could actually agree on. and so i urge my colleagues, please, bring this theater to a close and to return to something we can all support. let's use reconciliation to cancel the sequester once and for all. i thank the gentlelady and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanields. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. if i could just say to my frid from michigan, i think there's a lot of wisdom in what he had to say. my friend has been here, mr. speaker, since 1965, i believe. i can't believe elected in 1964, started in 1965, seen a

lot of failures and a lot of success in this institution. and reconciliation does the really hard things that we can't get done in other times. i would say to my friend, mr. speaker, that the vote has been cast on reconciliation for 2015. we are going to come back and get a conferenced balanced budget next year. i hear that drumat beginning around this institution. what is it we can get done together? i hope we can get this done, make no mistake. i believe this is good underlying legislation, but the past -- well, three decades now, since 1980, as i think of the big reconciliation measures that have gone through have been things that have changed america for the better forever. and i am grateful to the gentleman for reminding us all the power of this. mr. speaker, 61 times we had a

vote on the president's health care bill, that's true, but it's because there are real problems there. again, nine times of which the president has agreed with us about those real problems. the folks who crafted the president's health care bill were smart. i don't have any of the concerns about the funding that my friend from new york has, mr. speaker, because the bill is -- has funding buried in it in such a way we don't have any access to this from this institution. that's why we passed 4 1/2 years of legislation here without getting our arms around that funding. but we're talking about here, mr. speaker, are budget deficits. what we're talking about here is opportunity to move the needle on mandatory spending. what we're talking about here is about $81 billion in static scored money, closer to $140 billion in dynamically scored money, moving the needle on the budget that admiral