decision. home equity is an important part of retirement. trillion in savings. using the home equity better is something we are proposing. bipartisanpolicy.org if you want to see the plan by the bipartisan policy center. the house is in session, legislative branch appropriation. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., june 10, 2016, i hereby appoint the honorable ted poe to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives . the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. merciful god, we give you thanks for giving us another

day. we thank you once again that we, your creatures, can come before you and ask guidance for the men and women of this assembly. bless the people of this great nation with wisdom, knowledge, and understanding that they might responsibly participate in our american democracy as both political parties anticipate their conventions. help us all to be good citizens. respectful in our disagreements. and generous in our behavior toward one another. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from washington, miss den benny --

ms.delbene. ms.delbeney: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests of one-minute speeches on each sidele of aisle -- of the aisle. -- side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. you, mr. n: thank speaker. mr. speaker, recently i was proud to vote for a package of bills here on the floor of the united states house intended to help crack down on the terrible epidemic of prescription opioid abuse and heroin abuse across our nation. today i want to recognize the efforts in the pennsylvania general assembly to assist in the global of fighting back against all drug use. a new law authored by a state representative, who represents

a portion of the pennsylvania's fifth congressional district, will go after designer drugs in which different chemicals are combined to create new drugs. this will speed up the process in adding these drugs to the state's list of banned drugs, enabling law enforcement to arrest and prosecute individuals responsible. giving members of our law enforcement community the tools that they need to thwart illegal drug manufacturers will save lives. mr. speaker, if you want to successfully fight back against a problem, you surround it, and i'm proud to see great lifesaving solutions coming from both the federal and state levels. with additional community actions in the form of local round tables and town hall meetings. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington seek recognition? ms.delbene: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized. ms.delbene: thank you, mr. speaker. this is pride month and we have much to celebrate. in the last two decades our

nation haseen the defense of marriage act overturned. an end to the criminalization of same sex conduct. and nationwide marriage equality. all through supreme court decisions that were handed down on june 26. but even with these incredible strides, we cannot forget that lgbt americans continue to face inequality and discrimination simply for who they are and who they love. that's why i have introduced legislation to designate june 26 as lgbt equality day, not only to celebrate how far we have come, but also to acknowledge how much work remains to be done. so i urge my colleagues and all amerins to join me in celebratinghe first lgbt equality day on june 26. as opponents of equality double down in their attempts to legalize discrimination, we must keep fighting until all americans have equal rights and protections under the law. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempor the

gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? -- gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimo consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york investigated. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize an important milestone in my congressional district. the bicentennial of the aubn citizen. 200 years ago today this daily publication began serving the people of the county. born in 1816 this community newspaper has been known by many names over the yrs. in an editorial place this past weekend, it was noted that the auburn publishing citizen began publishing just 40 years after the birth of our country. the history of accomplishment jourmists at this publication include william dapping, a community hero, awarded the very first pulitzer for his work in covering the bloody 1929 auburn state prison riots. mr. katko: today it has evolved to cover a wide area of central w york with web-based access

to events. it publication has expended -- expanded. congratulations again this community based publication on two centuries of being the voice of the auburn community. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. last sunday david, an n.p.r. photojournalist from portland, oregon, was killed with his afghan translator in a taliban ambush in afghanistan. i cannot express my gratitude for david's tireless commitment to his profession, his evocative and beautiful work, and many contributions to n.p.r. will be remembered for generations. he covered conflict areas around the globe. and since 2001, extensively covered the wars in iraq and

afghanistan. he was one of the most decorated of photojournalists, including and emmy and the first journalist to be award the corporation for public broadcasting prestigious edward r. muro award for journalism. he played a central role in helping us understand the global events. one of those who put themselves in harm's way to open the world's window for the rest of us. they are true heroes. our hearts go out to the family and to his n.p.r. family for their loss. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: on wednesday, i was grateful to serve on the escort committee for the prime minister of india. due to my former co-chairmanship of the caucus object india and indian americans with my father having served in india during world

war ii. the prime minister was warmly received with his positive presentation. quote, as a representative of the world's largest democracy, it is indeed a privilege to speak to the leaders of the oldest. connecting our two nations is also a unique and dynamic bridge of three million indian americans. threats of terror are expanding, and new challenges are emerging in cyberand outer space. india is undergoing profound social and economic change. a commitment to rebuild a peaceful and stable and prosperous afghanistan is our shared objective. in every sector of india's forward march, i see the u.s. as an indispensable partner, end of quote. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. south carolina especially recognizes the success of indian americans with our governor nikki haley, the second indian american governor

elected in history. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to tell you a really cool story about two smart sisters. identical twins who earned the valedictorian and salute torian status at their high school? fort worth. they are two of the youngest of seven siblings in the ortiz family. the sisters worked hard and excelled academically at northside high school. in their spare time they participated in national honor society, health occupation students of america, tutored their pearce, and even helped adults obtain their g.e.d. their hard work paid off in academia when they were awarded scholarships at texas christian

university, where the sisters will receive a full ride to t.c.u. to continue their studies in biology and premed. the ortiz sisters demonstrate that anything is possible with dedication and perseverance. and oh, i want to also mention their sister, maria, was valedictorian in 2014 at the same school. i ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating them on their extraordinary academic achievement. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the boys baseball team of cherokee trail high school on winning the 2016 colorado 5-a championship game on may 29, 2016. the students and staff who were a part of the title winning

cougar team deserve to be honored for winning the state championship for the firts time since they won the 4-a state championship in 2007. the cougars beat rocky mountain high school 5-1 in the series and ended the season with a winning 22-5 record. throughout the season the boys' baseball team were a dedicated, worked hard, and persevered. these traits were a key factor in their endeavor to win the championship but winning could not have been possible without the tireless leadership of their head coach, alan dire, and his commendable staff. it is with great pride that i join all of the residents of aurora, colorado, in congratulating the cherry creek trail cougars on their championship. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today on behalf of the families who are still

struggling to make ends meet. our economy has made great strides since the end of the recession. like my colleagues i have watched the unemployment rate tick down each month from 10% in 2009 to the 5% today. according to the story that these numbers tell, our economy has recovered. but for nearly eight million americans still looking for work, our economy is still in a state of crisis. in my home district more than 16% live in poverty, and the unemployment rate is three times the national rate at 15%. i have met hundreds of these unemployed constituents at my annual job fair. they aren't looking for a hand out. they are looking for a hand up. an opportunity to work. a chance to live a better life. a shot at the american dream. as we enter the second half of 2016, i urge my colleagues to stand with me and take action to expand economic opportunities and to ensure that all americans who want to work have the chance to do so. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her

time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize someone who has a lot of heart, who carries herself with class, and humility. and who pushes her players to be better on and on of court. coach lorie blades' incredible success has produced 624 wins, dozens of conference titles, and two state championships. on april 30, coach blade was enshrined into the illinois basketball coaches hall of fame. her 22 seasons of accomplishments have ult vaulted both edwardsville and carrollton high schools and their programs to statewide dominance. mr. davis: beyond the victories, she's made a profound impact on countless lives, teaching players to take pride not just in the game but in everything they do.

pushing her players to never be satisfied or content. coach blade has had a phenomenal career on the court and on the softball diamond being the only coach in ihsa history to have over 600 wins in two sports. congratulations, coach blade, on all your accomplishments. thank you for your commitment to our students. i wish you-all the best in future seasons unless you play my hometown team. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> seek to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> 444, that's the number of times lynn woolsey came to this floor, stood at that podium right over there, and addressed this house during special orders speaking against war and in support of peace. lynn woolsey for 20 years represented much of my congressional district. and my colleagues here in congress will remember her as a

passionate and outspoken advocate, a leader in the effort to strengthen our national security without war, and one of the ways she did that was through her hundreds of special order hour speeches. the final one of these, number 444, she said the following, i quote, sometimes i have been accused of wanting a perfect world, but i consider that a compliment. our founders strove to form a more perfect union. why shouldn't we aim for a perfect world? you see, i'm absolutely certain that if we don't work toward a perfect world we won't ever come close to providing a safe, healthy, and secure world for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. she is with her grandchildren, carlo and lukea, here today. let us thank lynn woolsey for her service and let's urge all members of congress to approach our work with the same tenacity and resolve to work together toward peace, health, and security for all. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. black: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 767, i call up house concurrent resolution 89, expressing the sense of congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the united states economy and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 89, concurrent resolution expressing the sense of congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the united states economy. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 767, the concurrent resolution is considered as read. the concurrent resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the entlewoman from tennessee.

mrs. black: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on house concurrent resolution 89, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. black: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.con.res 89, which takes the strong stand against the carbon tax that would hurt american families, workers and job creators. as the president closes out his time in office, he would like nobody more than to ram through more of his harmful energy agenda. just look at the president's budget this year. among the $3.4 trillion in tax hikes he proposed, the president included a $10 per barrel tax on oil. this tax alone would cause gas prices to increase by an estimated 25 cents per gallon. with a carbon tax, there would

be a tax hike on production, distribution and use of not only oil but also natural gas and any other form of energy that admits carbon. such a tax would have many serious impacts on our economy by making day-to-day life more expensive for families throughout this country. first, a carbon tax could drive up the cost of energy for both the producer and the consumers. this translates to a larger energy bill that eat up more americans' take-home pay, especially during the hottest and coldest months of the year. second, a carbon tax would destroy well-paying jobs throughout the american energy sector, a sector that has fueled significant job growth throughout the country. third, a carbon tax would deliver a direct hit to working families and have compound effects that would reach all corners of economy. in fact, a carbon tax would increase the cost of virtually

every good manufactured or service performed in the united states, including everyday necessary its. if a good requires energy to make or support, which most do, taxes on that energy are essentially a tax on that good. as a result, americans would have to pay more for everything, from meals to clothing to school supplies. finally, to make this bad idea even worse, we know that a carbon tax would hurt those living in poverty and those on fixed incomes more than anyone else. put simply, a carbon tax would make it harder for us to grow our economy and help working families and small businesses succeed. we all want an all-of-the-above energy approach that supports new innovation, not a targeted tax hike on specific industries. thanks to the leadership of whip scalise, congress will pass this bill today and send it to the senate and we'll send

a clear message to the people to r districts as well as the obama white house that we do not support this extreme tax. instead, we will continue to pass legislation that grows our economy and helps americans get back to work. after all, last week we received the worst jobs report in almost six years. it is more important than ever hat we move forward with a bold, pro-growth agenda, not another expensive washington tax. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. levin: i do. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. levin: thank you. mr. speaker, what's happening today is further evidence that republicans are simply not doing their job. there is real work to be done.

it's simply inexcusable that action has not yet happened to prepare for the zika virus. that would be real action. helping the people of flint get clean drinking water in my home state would be something real. there's no budget resolution that's been considered here on the house floor. raising the minimum wage would also be real, and it would help lift many families out of poverty. closing tax loopholes and making the tax code fairer would be real. instead, today we are voting on two sense of congress resolutions. doing so provides further evidence that the republicans not only are not acting on those real problems mentioned

earlier but are in denial on another real issue that needs action -- climate change. the scientific evidence of climate change is overwhelming and the consensus is clear, and we've seen the impacts of climate change virtually every day in our country and around the world. this week the c.b.o., led by a director appointed by the majority here, released a report that identified the effects of climate change as a potential risk to the federal budget. according to that report, the cost of hurricane damage is projected to be $35 billion more than it is today because of climate change. the report stated, and i quote, human activities around the

world, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and widespread changes in land use, are producing growing emissions of greenhouse gases, end of quote. chimet change requires all of us -- climate change requires all of us, including the republicans here in total denial to come to our senses and to act on the challenge of climate change. this sense of congress resolution, like the second one, completely fails to meet that challenge. i urge its rejection. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time, and i ask that the distinguished member of our committee, mr. blumenauer, control the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman reserves, and the gentleman from oregon will control the minority time. the gentlelady from tennessee.

mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. and i now yield two minutes -- i'll yield three minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, member of ways and means and the chairman of the tax subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, may have three minutes. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague and friend on the ways and means committee, mrs. black, for yielding time. mr. speaker, i rise in support, strong support of house concurrent resolution 89, a resolution expressing the sense of congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the united states economy. at a time when 80% of domestic energy consumption comes from natural gas, from oil, from coal, it is clearly counterproductive to make these necessary resources more expensive by imposing an indirect tax on these fuels. a carbon tax means higher utility bills for families,

more expensive goods and services for consumers, decreased economic activity and it will really hurt job creation. we already heard about the dismal numbers last week that were released, 38 thousands jobs, nonforeign related jobs. let me be clear. when we were in the recession, one of the prime drivers economically that took us out of recession was the shale revolution, a real energy renaissance in this country. mr. speaker, this type of tax is not just a tax on carbon. it's a tax on working families. it's a tax on the american economy. it's a tax on american competitiveness. it's a tax on our energy security, and it strikes right at the foundation of our national security. it's the wrong thing to do. it's a regressive tax. it hurts the people who are most dependent on fixed

incomes, seniors are hurt the most. why would we consider doing this? there are better ways to set taxation for this country that meet our needs. i just don't understand why, other than the fact there's a radical environmental agenda, to propose this type of tax which would hurt manufacturing, american competitiveness. we can't do this. we need to grow this economy. we need growth around 3% to 4% minimum to create jobs, to let american business create value, to assert american leadership globally. we are not going to do this with a carbon tax. we won't do it. we need pro-growth policies. mr. speaker, the american people understand this. a recent study by the institute for energy policy found that over 60% of americans oppose this type of idea. i want to applaud whip scalise for offering this sensible resolution because it then puts

forth a very strong, affirmative statement that we're not going to disarm the american economy. we're not going to strike a blow at american competitiveness when we're struggling already as it is. i'm sick and tired of the fact that american leadership is eroding around the world. i'm sick and tired of the fact we're walking around withty midity. we -- with timidity. we ought to embrace american leadership. this should give us the clearest example that i know of american exceptionalism is to rewrite the rules of american energy security. based on diversity of supply source. i yield back. i'm good. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. blumenauer: i am pleased to hear my friend from louisiana

with his impassioned presentation today, but his presentation, coming on the heels of what we all heard from the prime minister of india calling for a low carbon, sustainable, innovative future makes us sad. if we would have had our committee take these issues seriously, maybe have a week of hearings, we would have been able to demonstrate to the gentleman with an impartial panel of independent experts all across the political spectrum, conservative, liberal, republican and democrat, who would conclude that a carbon tax, revenue-neutral, is actually the key to the innovative future they want. there are all sorts of ways to design a carbon tax actually to enhance the role, the economic

status of low and moderate-income people. we didn't have a hearing on that. it's something dismissed of something we can't do, but they've done it elsewhere in the world, and if the committee had done its job, we would be dealing with facts, not hyperbole. if the committee had done its job, we would have heard that we have very real challenges today to american security, which our department of defense has pointed out. climate change, despite denial from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, is a threat today to the american military posture. climate change is disrupting industries like fishing. it is producing unprecedented flooding, forest fires, a wildly unpredictable weather future. the reduction of arctic ice at

unprecedented levels ought to be of concern to my friends on the other side of the aisle. and maybe if we had some open, honest hearings that were balanced and independent, that case would have been made and they may support it. but whether or not they care about climate change and global warming, a carbon tax makes sense for american innovation, the economy and our competitiveness. . it is the areas of low-carbon energy that have seen the job growth. there are now more people working in wind and solar than the coal industry by far. that's where the job growth has been undertaken. a carbon tax would enhance america's global competitiveness. and if we had hearings listening to independent

experts across the board, that case would be made. and i don't think we'd have this foolish resolution on the floor. these are elements that would energy policy an even balanced approach using market forces which are much easier than some of the incentives that we have which are important, which people on both sides of the aisle have supported in the past, but a carbon tax is a more effective way of achieving those objectives. now, mr. speaker, i'm sad that we didn't have that debate in committee. i'm sad that we didn't hear from independent experts. i think of our friend bob english, former congressperson, who is on a personal crusade working with the evangelical community about the merits of a carbon tax.

it would have been great to have heard from bob and others like him to be able to present a balanced picture and be able to deal with meaningful policy. i still hope that someday that time will come. that our ways and means committee actually takes the time to dive into one of the most important issues of the day and to exam one of the -- examine one of the tools that independent experts all across the spectrum agree would be a solid addition and actually simplify the tax code while we can help people in low-income and small business and provide incentives for america's global competitiveness. like we heard from the prime minister of india from that very rostrum just two days ago. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker.

it is now my honor to yield five minutes to a gentleman from pennsylvania, a colleague of mine, and member of ways and means, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague, mrs. black. we see eye to eye on almost everything in our lives, and it's good to be able to stand here today and speak so strongly in favor of h.con.res 89. i really do appreciate the passion and sincerity of my colleagues across the aisle. but what we're talking today is about policy. what we're talking about today is the all important, unintended consequences that so often are put to blame for bad things that happen to american people. well intended, yes. at their conception. but very harmful. we're talking about a carbon tax, $10 a barrel on oil. don't worry about that because that's going to be charged up stream. that's going to be charged when

it's taken out of the ground. but we all know that every single tax, every single cost is paid down stream. what do i mean by that? every day hardworking americans who get up in the morning, want to put a roof over the heads of their families, food on the table, clothes on their back, and a little money put away for their future. but every day we continue to come up with policies that somehow although well intended make it harder for them to make a living. make it harder for them to live the american dream. make it harder for them to get ready for the future. now, i know there's always going to be exy tension threats. i get that. -- exy tension -- extension threats. i get that. my grandson won't get out of bed because he thinks there is a monster under it. i'm not a climate change denier. of course the climate changes. i have seen it happen in my life. where people say it's getting too cold, now too warm. we had to go it just changes.

i get that. but what doesn't change is the assault on the american people to pick up the tab on all these costs. there is nothing that makes less sense to me than what we're doing. back home where i come from, there is an old saying that goes something like this, measure twice and cut once. why? because once you do that cut, it's permanent. that's what you want to measure twice to make sure the cuts you make is the right cut. that's why you need to take the policies that affect everyday american people and make sure that you're not hurting them. well intended, i get it. i know it's well intended. i just don't think the american people have to pay the brunt in this. i'm very aware of the prime minister of the india being here yesterday, and i also know between india and china, that's where the greatest pollution comes from. i get t i get it. putting $10 a barrel on oil coming out of the ground just doesn't make sense. i would just like my friends on both sides of the aisle to

think about somebody named steven jobs. steven jobs did not invent the p.c. because we tax typewriters too high and caused the cost of that. innovation is the answer. we have seen great innovation. i know where i'm from in western pennsylvania that clean coal is real. but the president promised when he was running as a candidate he would put those who chose to make electricity by burning coal out of business. so we regulate them to the point where it's no longer cost efficient to do that, but we keep moving that way. the fact that 40,000 pennsylvanians make a living that way, don't worry about that. they'll have to find something else to do. even go down to west virginia you can hear, you're going to be out of business, but we'll find something else for you to do. we'll get to that later. look, we have an opportunity today. this is a sense of congress. to at the time american peple what it is that we think goes on with thispolicy. for far too long we have had a deaf ear and blind eye to the

people who sent us here to represent them. we talk very loftly about what it is we would like to see, how it is we would like to go. our dream for the future. but we forget every day hardworking american taxpayers t up, throw their feet out over the side of the bed, and go to work for a very particular reason their family. their churches. their schools. their communities. more importantly, all of america. well intended, yes. but the results would be devastating. who would pay this carbon tax? who would pay this $10 a barrel? any man, woman who has to go out and buy anything for his or her family. it would be reflected in the cost of everything we put on our backs and everything we put in our mouths. it would affect everything we do when we travel from one point to another. but we say it's necessary, it's necessary because we have got to tax this so high that we drive people away from it.

i would hope that we could come together in america's house and do what's right for america's people. to do what's right for the people who send us here to represent them because they are working so hard to make sure that there's a future for their children. in the last month when we created one job for every 8,000 americans, one job for every $8,000 americans, are you kidding me? in the greatest country the world has ever known, in a nation that leads the world in defending freedom and liberty, in a nation that knows that the best -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kelly: is through american parmings. mrs. black: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kelly: i thank the gentlelady. i do want to make sure that this final point comes across. we can work together for solutions. we can work together to do the same things for the same people that we all came here to

represent. i do not think that there is ill intended ideas on the other side. i think they are well intended. i think they are wrong. i think they are wrong for the times and the american people. as i said earlier, where i'm from there is a lot of old adages, one is don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon. i will tell you right now that the mule is trying to find a way to unhook itself from the wagon because that load has gotten too heavy to pay. and i know the people loading the wagon think it's ok because at some point that's going to have to be delivered somewhere. the truth of the matter is, it's not. we have put too heavy a burden on american taxpayers. hardworking american taxpayers. hardworking americans. 1.4 million american lives. have been sacrificed for the freedom and liberty not just of this country and our country and our nation, but for the whole world. i say let's be careful before we do these well intended but careless things. let's be careful before we turn

our back on the people that actually we represent here. that's hardworking american people and i thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleladfrom tennessee reserves her time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i couldn't agree more with my good friend from pennsylvania from butler, pennsylvania, that we can actually come together and fashion solutions. that's why it is such a tragedy that this resolution comes to the floor without ever having our committee work on it. because we could have had hearings that could have narrowed those gaps. i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to enter into the record a letter from six for vative advocates climate change action. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. blumenauer: my friend from pennsylvania could have heard from them talk about the need for action and how you can design a carbon tax that meets the objectives he's talking

about. but we never did that. we didn't listen to experts across the spectrum, republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, economists, and scientists to be able to examine the facts. instead, we have a cartoon proposal that they are arguing against as opposed to sething that we could have worked on together that is promoted by most of the independent experts in the field. and someday within our lifetime this congress will consider, and i think probably approve. it is my great honor to yield three minutes to the gentleman mcdermott, d who's looked at some of these challenges around the globe. three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlan from washington is recognized for three minutes. as cdermott: mr. speaker,

come to speak on the floor i think i'm in the house of the deniers. in 2007 that liberal journal, the national geographic, had an artle called, the big thaw. it says, it's no surprise that a warming clima is melting the world's glaciers and polar ice but no one expected it to happen this fast. that's 2007. th's nine years ago. i was taken along with gerry connolly up to the arctic with the norwegian government. they are worried about it, what's happening. -- this s is resolution is just burying your head in the sand. i think if you think youred put your head in the sand long enough it will go wavement when you pull your head out it won't be there. the c.b.o. just put a report out, texas, louisiana, and

florida are going to have hurricane damage unbelievable. its ready spends 45% of money on hurricane damage. $9billion a year. if you think the insurance companies are going to keep insuring against hurricanes, you got another thing coming. at some point they are going to say, we're not doing hurricane insurance in florida and louisiana and texas and a whole bunch of other places. that's the economics. you say, let's not pay anything right now. let's not change anything. let's not work on it. but if we don't work on it, we're going to pay later. i'm old enough to remeer a commercial on the television. it was an air cleaner on your car and it said, pay me ow, or pay me later. and this is what this is about

today. now, there are things going on in this country which just absolutely boggle my mind. in north carolina, the assembly got together and they said, you know what, we're not going to spend any money to measure the sea levels. now you've got hundreds of miles of coastline in north carolina wre the sea is riing and property values are going to be lost. year talking money here. -- we're talking money here. we're not talking soft liberal stuff. this is real and people don't want to even look at it. in florida and wisconsin they took a novel approach and they said, we're not even going to use the word climate change in anything. now, here in congress the climate deniers take many forms from blocking the word, social cost of carbon, to directing the department of defense to nore climate change.

all the while d.o.d. it self -- itself highlights the threaof climate change to national security. republins like to talk about national security -- i ask for an additional minute. mrblumenauer: i yield an additional minute. the speaker o tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcdermott: if you're serious about talking about natiol security, you better start talking about the climate change that's going on in the world. the sea the sea lanes across the north pole are coming. bos are already coming. we're blding the panama canal wider and it's opening up on the north end of the globe. now, this absurdity cannot last and we got begin to do what mr. blumenauer suggested. there has to be hearings. bo inis, i knew him when he was here. he was a wild-eyed liberal. he came wn here talking about aarbon tax.

i had a carbon tax. mr. larson had a carbon tax. we were together. this is not bipartisan -- is is not a partisan iue, democrat versus republican. it's whether or not you are going to look at the science of what's happening on the globe. i urge people to vote no on this. you'll come back and do it in a couple of years. the speaker pro tempe: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from ore reserves his time, and the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blac thank you, mr. speaker. and it is now my honor to yield three minutes to the gentleman from lisiana, our majority whip, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentlelady from tennessee for yielding. i'm proud to bring forward this leslation, mr. speaker, that expresses thetrong sense of congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the united states economy. if you look at what this administration has done through radical rules and regulations, through all of its agencies starting with the e.p.a., with the i.r.s., with the nlrb, the

whole alabet soup of federal agencies that every morning wake u trying to figure out how to make it harder for our economy to get moving ain, how tmake it harder for people to create jobs in america and, frankly, these -- the rults o these radal regulations are shiftingnd running jobs away out of our country to foreign countries like china, like india, and they want to keep it going. this isot a new concept, mr. speaker. they tried this years ago when ey brought through the cap and trade bill passed out of he house. it couldn't even pass in the senate when they had a supermajority in the senate with 60 votes because it was such a detrimental idea that would devastatour economy. yet, even with that defeat, president oba still tries to come back with a carbon x through other means. whether it's regulatis or whether it's superimposed carbon taxes through the e.p.a. and other thin they're doing. but we had hearings on this, mr. speaker. there's data all the around ich confirms how devastating

a carbon tax would be to the united states economy. you can just look at what some f the outse groups that look at this. the national association of manufacturers, the people that me things in arica have confirmed we lose morehan a million jobs in america if a carbon tax was imposed. where would those jobs go? they'd go to countries, ironically, that don't havehe good environmentastandards we already have so they would go to countries like china and india where if you're concerned about carbon going into the atmosphere, the things that they do to produce the same things we produceere in americait creates moe than five times the amountf carbon in those countri. so you're shifting jobs out of america to send it to countries where you'd actually create more carbon. you know, they talk about somehow being able to create policy that will stop hurricanes and change e sea level rising, for goodness sak as if some policy is going to do that. byhe way, the result of those policy will create carbon in

the earth's atmosphere. hat's n even talk about that. let's talk about the track record of t administration that now wants to control the earth's temperature. they spent over $500 million and couldn't even create a website to take your health insurance request. healthcare.gov you remember that. well, this group thinks they can control the earth's temperature throh radical policies. but let's look at the devastating impacts tse policies wod have it would have a devastang impact on the middle class of this country. our only congreional budget office that looked at this said a carbon tax wou actuay hit low-income people the hardest. even harder than high-income people. it wohave a devastating impact on those people that are least able to afford it because it would increase the cost of everything they do. it would increase your food st at the grocery sore. it would increase, ocourse, when youay at the pp. it would increase your electricity prices. if i may. mrs. black: mr. chairman, i yield an addional two minutes the gentleman.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemafrom louisia is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. the heritage foundatn look at this and said this kind of carbon tax would actuly increase the cost of everything that families buy by over $1,400 per family. famies are gog to p $1,400 more every ye for the co of a rbon tax that the otherde wants to defend. and to yield what? to just yield an opportuni for countrs like china and india to grow their onomies at the expense of ours. so mr. speaker, if you look at what they're trying to -- and, again, if you want to do this, bring it forward as an idea in legislion, and they trd it with cap and trade an it got defeated when democrats controlled everything. there's bipartisanship on this issue, and the bipartisanship is in opposition to a carbon tax. and so whyon't we go on record and be ry clear about it? not just that it' bad py but to reaffirm howevastating

to would be for the unit states economy. it shouldn't move forward. the president needs to op this radical agend and instd focus on reversing the depressing economic activity that we' seen in this country since he'seen president because of these kind of policies. let'set real economic growth let's bring theseobs back to the united states. let's reject a carbon tax. i urge adoptin of this resolution aniield back the balance of my time. the saker pro tempore: the ntleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from oregon. . lumenauer: i enjoyed the gentleman's impassioned presentation. it's too bad the ways and meas committee didn't sit dond go through the elements that would be in a balanced carbon x. hs debati a ctoon version, not onee worked on.

m going to yield to a gentleman that's crafted a realistic we had in the reference to the inability to move the cap and trade, which i don't think is as good as a carbon tax. it failed because there were a minority of the senate who were opposed to allowing it to go forward. it wasn't we didn't have a majority that were interested, that there were -- in the senate you can have a veto with 41 people who decided they're not going to allow things to move forward. mr. speaker, i think -- i'm honored to turn to my friend from connecticut, mr. larson, who has been a student of a carbon tax, who has listened to those people across the political spectrum and has been a champion of a reasonable, thoughtful approach to promote american innovation.

i would just point out the areas where we've had the greatest job growth in the energy sector, has not been petroleum or coal. it's been solar and wind, and a carbon tax would help accelerate that by leveling the playing field and allowing the forces of economics to dictate the next steps. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: i thank -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. mr. larson: i thank the gentleman from oregon. i'm delighted to be on the floor and join in this debate. i must, along with my colleague from oregon, express the frustration. this body should be about the vitality of ideas, whatever those ideas are. in a democracy, there ought to be the willingness to express them. mr. blumenauer has detailed at

length the lack of public hearings. listen, i get it. this is a messaging opportunity. this has no force of law. all this does is say what the sensibilities are of the congress. now, what does the public think about the sensibilities of the congress? what the public thinks is we're all bluster and no solution and we never take the time to sit down and measure twice and then cut. we just simply don't do that in our committees, and so the vitality of ideas, a very noble idea expressed by a republican, mr. inglis, many sessions ago and embraced by many conservative economists in the reagan, in the nixon, in the bruckses about providing -- bush administrations about

providing certainty about what we need to do in a revenue stream that has this at its core. tax pollution. tax pollution at its source and pass the savings onto the consumers. we know the volumes that are produced. we know the science behind this. there should be an open and clear-eyed debate on this but not only a debate about the pros and cons but how about something refreshing for the american people? a solution. may not be the bill i proposed or that bob inglis proposed or that any number of people have embraced, but when you have major companies, including major oil companies who will be

tax say, no, this is a sensible way for us to embrace this. when we're enjoined by the very people this would tax and by conservative economists to say, yeah, we ought to take a look at this not only from the standpoint of the certainty that it will provide but the known certainty of what pollution does and it's not just about climate change. it's about the health of the air that we breathe, what we're poisoning in the atmosphere with our children, what happens with respect to the effects of asthma and what happens in terms of the people in coal mines from black lung disease to the various debilitating -- could i have another minute? mr. blumenauer: i will yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. mr. larson: they scream out for the congress not to have a message opportunity that may or

may not advantage one side or the other in the realm of politics but how about a solution, how about us doing what mike telly suggested, to work together in the committee to come up with a positive solution as to how to address this? pass the savings along to the consumer. develop a revenue system that will in fact allow us to rebuild our country that's crumbling around us. let's take those steps and do the responsibility that we all have to the citizens, to provide them with solutions, not bluster. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. and it's now my honor to yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of agriculture and natural resources. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mrs. black, as well as mr. boustany on these two concurrent resolutions today you're offering. i appreciate the time.

so i recall in this debate here there was a whole movie back in the 1960's called if it's tuesday this must be belgium. well, if it's tax raising time it must be washington, d.c., because there's more schemes all the time to come hit not just big evil corporations and big energy producers, this always ends up hitting the bottom line of american working families and the economy. the president's plan to raise the tax on each and every barrel of oil produced by $10 translates out to 25 cents at the pump. we heard earlier some of my colleagues talk about what the carbon tax would mean to working families. much more than they can afford in this bad economy and at a time where the jobless rate is higher than is even measurable by this administration. this continues the anti-domestically produced narrative of this administration. it only hurts u.s. energy jobs and takes production -- productive u.s. fields such as what we had in california out of production that are on the margins of being profitable.

instead of having domestically produced energy, we're going to shift more of that burden to other sources. foreign energy or the need for exploring more here or off-shore. why don't we allow the profitable energy in oil fields we have in california and other parts of the country and not hamper them with additional tax that will take them out of production and rely more on foreign oil? now, how popular is this amongst regular people? well, in my own district, we conducted a survey recently where people took actually time to send postcards back in my office that came in about approximately 90% rate in opposition to this $10 per barrel oil tax which they understand means 25 cents, again, per gallon at the gas pump. now, who this really, really hurts? it hurts all americans. it hurts working families. people at the lower end of the income scale. but even more so districts like mine that are very rural and

all the rural districts around the country where people have to travel farther to get to their work, take their kids to school or to health care appointments, their ballgames. maybe even save up occasionally in this economy for a travel vacation they might like to do and visit the beauty of america. . the rural economy is even more democrat stated. with these schemes being pondered. other ideas like a tax on every mile driven, which is being contell nated at some level, as well as in my own state. tax people for every mile they drive. tax them at the gas pump. tax them for carbon. again, this hits real people in america not just some ideal of a big evil corporation. so, when answer always seems to be washington, more government, more taxation that hurts working families, perhaps first these dollars should be channeled into projects that people can use. not more environmental projects, but more highways,

bridges, water storage. not boondoggles like california scutch as the high speed rail money pit. or the cost of frivolous environmental measures that drive up the cost of construction projects and sometimes even completely eliminate them. we talk about a green economy a lot on this -- especially on that side of the floor over there. why don't we focus on a green economy not based on importing solar panels from china or wind machines from europe. how about we get out and do the forestry needed to be done to send the forests, talking about the air we breathe, each summer for months the air's brown in northern california. and lots of california and western states. from forests burning because they are not managed, they are not thinned. they are overgrown. that would be a green economy we could turn this into biomass if you want to have real energy that works for the equation of real energy. channel that effort into that instead of chasing these wind machines and he solar -- and

solar panels. this is why i support house concurrent resolution 112 and 89 to send a message this is more job killing taxes and schemes that will fix our economy. it's a freedom to explore and produce low cost -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. black: i yield an additional minute to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: it's the freedom to produce low cost domestic energy that will help americans and our economy to recover once again. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee reserves her time. and the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my honor to turn to mr. delaney from maryland, a gentleman who brings his private sector business success to commonsense solutions in policy. two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. delaney: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend from oregon for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, today my friend on the other side of the aisle are making four points. the first point they are making

is they don't believe in science because the science around climate change is unassailable. the sec point they are making is they don't worry about american prosperity because from an economic perspective and national security perspective, the military we should be reminded has called climate change a threat multiplier, this a very significant risk to long-term american prosperity. the third point they are making is they don't believe in the power of markets to change behavior at its core. they are not acknowledging the power of a capitalistic economic model that change people's behavior. the fourth thing they are saying, they don't trust u.s. businesses to innovate into opportunities and around challenges. these are extraordinary statements. and contrast that with our approach. i have a piece of legislation called the tax flution not profits act which puts in place a carbon pricing mechanism which has been proven to be the most effective way, more effective than a regulatory approach, to change behavior and reverse some of the trends

and bend the curve on climate change. and we take the revenues that are generated by that bill and we use it to offset all of the costs that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say exist through tax credits to individuals. we setaside money to take care of the retirement of all the coal workers in the united states of america for the rest of their lives, and then we take the remaining revenues and we pay for a significant and substantial cut to business taxes. so this piece of legislation, unlike what my colleagues are proposing, has a double bottom line. it will reverse the negative effects of climate change and threat to our prosperity and it's a pro-growth policy because it puts money back in the economy and it makes a bet on u.s. businesses that they can innovate and grow into opportunities and around challenges. it's reflective of the view of businesses in 2016 not the view of businesses from the 1950's.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlelady fromtown tfpblet mrs. black: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: may i ask the remaining time, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon has 9 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from tennessee has nine minutes. the speaker pro tempore: i am happy to yield 2 1/2 minutes to my friend from california, mr. huffman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. huffman: thinking and action is what we need. i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to these two resolutions. the first one, house concurrent resolution 89, says that a carbon tax would necessarily be detrimental to the united states economy. this is false. plain and simple. the truth is that we can and we must design carbon pollution reduction strategies to spur

advancements in clean energy technology, reduce carbon pollution, and fight climate change. these strategies, including a carbon tax or a fee can easily be designed to be revenue neutral. and we know from long experience at the state and federal level that fighting pollution is good for jobs and good for the economy. and california is a perfect example. if anyone has questions about this. come to california where you'll see that climate leadership is also good economics. it doesn't seem to matter to my colleagues who have offered these resolutions. in the year 2016 they continue to deny the reality of climate change. literally, our friends across the aisle are the last policymakers on the planet earth to hold this view. even in other oil producing contry, the conservative parties in those countries acknowledge climate change and they have positions in their party platforms that acknonl we need to do something about it. the other resolution, house concurrent resolution 112,

similarly demonstrates a lack of leadership by opposing president obama's proposal to finance infrastructure investments. those who don't support the president's infrastructure financing mechanism. i think have a responsible -- responsibility to offer their own solutions for our infrastructure crisis. this bill doesn't do that. instead, it simply describes a desire to support big oil. so here we have it. climate denial, a party that doesn't want to fill vacancies on the supreme court, a party that doesn't want to do its job to respond to the public health crisis like zika, a party that also prefers not to offer any solutions on our critical infrastructure funding needs. is this how we're going to make america great again? i don't think so. let's move forward in the 21st century, not let our energy and infrastructure policies be driven by 18th century thinking. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to oppose both of these bills and i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentlelady fromtown tfpblet mrs. black: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield 2 1 minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. cartwright: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to the gentleman from oregon. mr. speaker, we're here debating resolution 89, which purports to express the sense of congress but really nothing could be further from the truth. because what it does is it expresses the nonsense of congress. we're here witnessing the latest example of climate denial, brought to the floor by the majority. the entire world agrees that climate change is a pressing problem except this extreme wing of the republican party.

climate change is already affecting people across the globe. as dr. mcdermott from washington pointed out already, the nonpartisan c.b.o. recently noted the increasing and enormous budgetary impact future storms will have on our nation and attributed the majority of this problem to climate change. and i'm here to tell you these costs will fall disproportionately on low-income people, low-income communities and people of color in our country. but are we here on the floor debating a real solution brought forward by the majority? are we here having hearings? no, we're not. we're here debating a resolution cutting off a solution that economists from all corners of the earth believe is the most efficient way to address climate change. a properly designed price on carbon can improve the overall performance of the u.s. economy, protect

competitiveness, create jobs, promote investment, and lead us toward american energy independence. the gentleman from oregon is right. instead of debating this resolution, we should be having hearings, discussing ways that we can sensibly lead the transition to renewable fuels and clean energy sources. even big oil companies like royal dutch shell and b.p. have voiced support for carbon taxes in recent years, acknowledging that climate change is real and we should be doing something about it. and i say, mr. speaker, vote no on resolution 89, and let's start a real debate, a sensible debate, on this exy tension threat to our nation and globe. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: reserves. the speaker pro tempore:

reserves. mrs. black: mr. speaker, i have no more speakers. i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: then i will close. mr. speaker, i really appreciate this little window of an opportunity to talk about a carbon tax. i hope that the day will come when we will have an opportunity to have that discussion in a robust and thoughtful way in our ways and means committee. heaven knows it's important. lots of people have opinions and ideas. i think we would benefit from it. but i hope that we will have that discussion after we hear from a balanced, wide ranging group of independent experts across the spectrum to be able to give us meaningful information about it. i'm going to introduce and ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter from greg

dat sun, the vice president for energy policy from the center of american progress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. blumenauer: let me read a couple of items from his letter. he points out that top economic advisors to both democratic and republican presidents have expressed their support for putting a price on carbon. as an effective and efficient approach for reducing pollution. he cites gregory manage wits -- mango wits, former chairman of the council on economic advisors under president george w. bush who says basic economics tells us when you tax something you normally get less of t if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon we need a global carbon tax. carbon is already priced in a significant portion of the world. 40 national jurisdictions, more than 20 cities, states, and regions on five continents.

almost a quarter of global reason house gas emissions have a price on their carbon. in the united states 25% of the population live in jurisdictions where carbon pollution is currently priced. and where 1/3 of the country's economic activity takes place. that's in america right now. no acknowledgement of that in this debate. we could have talked about that in the committee. the price on california's carbon, referenced by my friend, mr. huffman, is the highest of any state in the country at almost $13 per ton. yet the california economy is projected to grow at a faster pace than the rest of the united states over the next two years. they reference the fact that more than 400 investors with more than $24 thrill in assets

have called on governments to establish stable economically meaningful carbon pricing. already more than a thousand businesses apply a price on carbon to inform their investments and operations and their -- or plan to do so over the next two years. remember the united nations carbon -- climate talks in paris last december, where governments, business, nongovernment organizations, announced the new carbon pricing leadership coalition to accelerate and expand the adoption of carbon pricing worldwide. in keeping with what we heard from prime minister modi in this chamber just two days ago. yet my friends on the other side of the aisle are not involved with our being able to discuss this in depth. to be able to bring in the experts. to be able to work together to

design a pricing mechanism that avoids some of the cartoon characteristics that they establish here. we had that chance. and we haven't done it. but this will not be the last word. this meaningless resolution will undoubtedly pass today. it's not going to have any impact in terms of the long-term. the long-term we're on a path to price carbon, and we have the capacity to do so in a thoughtful and effective way ike the conservative leaders correspondentence i put into the record earlier, suggests. . it suggests it can be revenue neutral, it can reverse the effects of climate change and it's a way to promote economic opportunity and global competitiveness.

i appreciate the opportunity to express my views on this and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, although my colleagues on the other sloil have made this a conversation about climate -- side of the aisle have made this a conversation about climate change which i agree we should have and have in another venue and that's the committee structure, this is about a president who decided on his own without coming to congress to discuss this tax, this $10 barrel of gasoline. because he was unable to get this carbon tax when, by the way, the house and the senate were both in his own party he couldn't even get this passed. so this is a discussion for another day about climate change, which we can all have and have in a very gentle way. however, let me sum up what this would do if this were po

pass -- to pass. the tax would drive up the cost of energy which would most affect those at the lower income. it would destroy well-paying jobs in the industry -- the energy industry. well-paying jobs. right now when we look at what our loss of jobs are here in this country, we have the lowest rate of jobs in six years. number three, it would directly hit working families the most, those it the very lowest income and especially those that are elderly. none of these help grow our economy and get our economy growing or people back to work and raise their incomes. herefore, i urge a yes vote on house concurrent resolution 89. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee yields back her time. all time for debate has

expoured. pursuant to house resolution 767 the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mrs. black: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee has requested the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote on the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? scleastscloast mr. speaker, pursuant -- mr. scalise: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 767, i call up house concurrent resolution 112, expressing the sense of congress opposing the president's proposed $10.25 tax on every barrel of oil and ask for its immediate

consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 112, concurrent resolution expressing the sense of congress opposing the president's proposed $10 tax on every barrel of oil. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 767, the concurrent resolution is considered as read. the concurrent resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous materials on house concurrent resolution 112, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. boustany: mr. speaker,

earlier this year the obama administration in its budget proposal proposed a $10.25 tax on every barrel of oil. this will severely harm america's already struggling energy industry, but it will have a very detrimental impact throughout the american economy, and that's why i introduced house concurrent resolution 112, sending a very clear message that congress and the american people refuse to allow this at mferings to fund an environmental -- administration to fund an environmental agenda on the backs of working families. it's pretty simple. at $10.25 per barrel of oil, this increase would not only add significantly to the cost a gallon of gasoline at the pump, severely hurting fixed income families, seniors, so forth it would also have a detrimental impact on job creation, on wages and on the nation's overall economic health. this also would effectively act

as an exploit tax on oil just as we opened up the door to export crude oil to allow american producers to have market access worldwide, just like our iranian opponents worldwide currently have the luxury to do. why would we tie up the hands of american energy producers and allow the iranians and opec to dominate world markets? wrong. secondly, this administration at a time when in louisiana and texas and other states on the coast, we understand how important our environment, our economy and energy policies are , we're looking to use revenue sharing to help us rebuild coastline and marsh and replenish our beaches. the administration opposes this. they listed that in their budget proposal. this tax, this tax is a tax on hardworking american families.

it's a tax on american competitiveness. it's a tax on american innovation. it's a tax on our energy security, and it's a tax on the very foundation of our national security. now, oil and gas industry has watched as market conditions have changed because of slow growth globally, low demand and abundant supply thanks to american innovation largely, we've seen the oil price drop from $115 a barrel in november, 2014, as low as $27 a barrel. now prices around hovering around $48, $50 a barrel. this took us out of the recession and economic growth and now i know in my home state of louisiana just last year we lost 11,700 jobs alone in louisiana in the oil and gas sector. 5,500 in my hometown of lafayette alone. and even worse globally over

250,000 people lost their jobs. of course, if you look what happened in the first quarter of this year, the revised atistics on economic growth, .8%. how is american business going to create value in jobs with that kind of growth, that kind of private sector growth? not only that, just last week the bureau of labor statistics released showed 38,000 jobs created last month, the worst number since 2010. that's a terrible statistic with real human dimensions. this tax will make it worse if it were to go forward. in fact, the tax foundation created an economic model to per the impact of a $10.25 barrel tax over 10 years, what this would do if implemented, an estimated 137,000 americans in full-time employment in this sector would lose their jobs. it's important to remember that

oil is used for a lot more than just gasoline in our automobiles. the u.s. energy information administration points out that a quarter of a barrel of crude -- a quarter of each barrel of crude oil used -- is used for nonfuel goods such as plastic, asphalt, dyes, lubricants, power heating and other nontransportation uses. in fact, products throughout the american economy have as their base ingredient these fossil fuel ingredients. this tax, $10.25, will be passed onto those industries and consumers across this country. the oil and gas industry supports more than nine million american jobs, and what happens to this industry and within this industry reverberates throughout our entire u.s. economy. it's also important to look at what this proposal would do as we view it through a national security lens. american innovation, the energy

renaissance we saw with shale exploration and high drougic fracturing, horizontal -- hydraulic fractures, horizontal drilling, as well as better assessment of our reserves, have given us this tremendous opportunity to change global energy security away from an opec or russian-driven model where state enterprises control pricing and control supply to an american view of energy security which our allies desperately want. it's a view of energy security with diversity of supply sources, transparent pricing, open markets. a view of energy security globally, uniquely american, that would help economic growth globally and help so many countries that are struggling today, many currently in recession. but energy security's linked to our national security, and we have an opportunity to create a

western hemisphere energy trading block based on these principles rather than an opec or a russian model. this is an opportunity for america to change, not only energy security, but the entire national security environment in a more pro-american way. this tax would really be a stab in the heart of that. it's the wrong thing to do and, of course, this tax would increase the cost of domestic production, translating to higher prices for oil and all petroleum products, potentially eroding america's price competitiveness in the global marketplace. if the purpose of this proposal was to increase revenue, then i would say that the president should be instead pursuing sound energy policies consisting of embracing this energy sector, american energy production. one of the clearest examples of american exceptionalism, not an unfettered drastic tax increase. if you want to build roads, we

need economic growth and sensible tax policies that will help us build out our transportation. according to a report released by the american petroleum institute, our energy producers could create one million new jobs in just seven years and increase revenue to federal and state governments by $800 billion by 2030 if we allow this it energy sector to do its work responsibly. it's time for our nation to fully embrace the vast opportunities released by this energy renaissance. let's embrace this new era of abundance and american diplomacy that puts america in a strong position. it's time for the president to stop his relentless tax and regulatory assault on the oil and gas industry that's only worsening our economic problems. this resolution shows very clearly that congress stands for job creation over a radical political agenda, and i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves his time.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. levin: the republicans don't like the president's budget proposal. they've never been able to bring their own to the floor. never. they talk about economic growth and jobs. this administration has a proud record of creating jobs. they haven't done all we want, but they are successful in important respects. this administration has had an energy policy that has really been working well as can be seen by what has happened. there remain problems with it, and we'll have some debate about where we go in the future.

the problem is that the republicans start from a premise that is grievously wrong. they're in denial of climate change, and everything they do relating to energy stems from that. they're out of step with the american people. a recent gallup poll showed this, 64% of americans are worried a great deal or a fair amount about global warming. 59% of americans say the effects of global warming have already begun. only 10% of americans say the effects of global warming will never happen. only 10%. 65% of americans, according to this gallup poll of recent times, say our planet's temperature increases over the

last 100 years are primarily caused by human activities rather than natural causes. but what do we hear from the now leading republican? well, going back a few years ago, this is what he had to say and i quote. this -- the concept of global warming was created by and for the chinese in order to make u.s. manufacturing noncompetitive. that was four years ago, more or less. now the same person who is now leading the republican party says this, and i quote, i'm not a great believer in man-made climate change. if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920's. and now they have global warming, although now they don't know if they have global

warming. end of quote. so we have today from the republican majority are two sense of congress resolutions which really needed is instead is for the republican party to come to their senses on climate change like the vast majority of the american people. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. and once again it's my privilege to yield the balance of our time to one of our many members, but this person in particular who has devoted so much of his deep intelligence and his energy to this issue, the gentleman from oregon, i now yield the balance of our time for his management. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from oregon will control the time. the gentleman reserves from oregon. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized.

mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the distinguished gentleman, mr. kelly, a very important member of the house ways and means committee and someone who has extensive private sector experience. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague, dr. boustany. again, before we came on to the floor we were in the cloakroom debating -- talking about what the debate was going to be, and i thought the debate was going to be about what was actually happening today. not a scientific debate, not a debate about what people believe or don't believe, but on the reality that the president proposed $10 a barrel of oil. that would be translated into -- that comes out to 25 cents per gallon at the pump. what do i mean by that? what i'm talking about is when hardworking american taxpayers go to fill up their car or truck, it's going to cost them 25 cents more per gallon. it also translates into everything that they put on

their backs, that they put in their mouth. every aspect of life is going to be increased. now, keep in mind that while there may be some kind of science we want to turn this debate into, here's the facts. here's the facts. middle income americans, lower income americans have seen a drop in their wages. a significant drop in their wages. last month we saw that we created one job for every 8,000 americans. so we talk about today we need to talk about climate change. no, here's what we need to talk about. we need to talk about real change in the marketplace. we need to talk about how we're hurting the american economy. we need to talk about how we're eliminating the ability of america to compete in a global economy. an economy that i just don't want to participate in but i think america should dominate. an america that is so blessed with so many assets. while we worry about all the energy above, let's not forget

all the energy below. let's not forget what america's strongest card is to play, and that is energy self-sustaining. we're able to do that. why in the world would anybody think that by adding $10 a barrel of oil somehow that's going to help the climate worldwide when we know that we're the only ones proposing this? and other people around the world are looking, says i can't agree more with the president's ideas. because we compete against the united states and i would love to be on the shelf with a product that costs more than the one we're putting on the shelf. so that america is hurting america. america's policies are hurting everyday americans. if we truly want to make america great men gwen, let's make america great again for every single -- again, let's make america great for every single american. that's not a political aspiration, that's a responsibility in america's house, that is the house of representatives. our sense that somehow this

would be positive is absolutely wrong-headed and wrong thinking. it just doesn't work that way. why would we sit here and debate this today? because we know it's going to hurt every single hardworking american taxpayer. it's going to add to our cost of living. it's going to increase the cost of everything we consume. and we're going to do it in the idea that somehow -- and the idea that somehow the rest of the world will follow suit and we know they won't, what they will do is look at us and say, you know what, let's take advantage of america's wrong-headedness. let's make sure that we're able to grab up more of the market, global market, because america continues to hurt itself and everyday citizens. this is america's house of representatives. we do not come here representing ourselves. we come here representing 705,687 americans that live back in our districts. we do not come here just

representing republican policy and republican agenda. we do not just come here representing democrat policy and democrat agenda. we come here representing america. if we cannot get it through our heads at the end of the day the policy that comes out of this town, a town that is awash in prosperity, good jobs, great restaurants, and i have never seen a town with more cranes, i'm talking about industrial cranes. i would love some of my constituents to walk back home with me and go into the cities and towns and the little villages that i represent and you tell those people, things are really getting good. we're on the right stage. we're on the right trajectory. we're going to become good again. the question is when? i would just suggest that, and i said this earlier, you cannot continue to put the burden of these policies, well intended though they may be, on the american ardworking

taxpayers. men and women that get up every day with one resolve and one resolve only and that is to take care of their families. to build a better community. to build a better life. why in the world do we have to waste time debating something today that can be debated elsewhere but we come here today expressing a sense of resolution that the president's ideas in this budget are absolutely wrong for every single american. we can debate these things later, but we have to come to agreement at some point here that we just don't represent our parties, we represent people. that is far more important than any party that we represent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. kelly: i thank the gentleman. look, i have watched it -- i have only been here five years, i come out of the private sector. i never, ever thought i would be serving in congress because i never thought i would have to. i thought people would come here representing me and my family and my community and my state and my nation and that

they would do the right thing. i don't say they don't think they are doing the right thing, but at the end of the day the final results don't look very good. in a nation that's quickly approaching $20 trillion in debt and burdening every single american taxpayer with more and more costs of being here, while not increasing their opportunity, i think we need to take a hard look, take a look in the mirror and understand that it all changes t. all starts, with each of us. -- it all starts with each of us. we can change this, we can make it better, but we can't make it better by putting a heavy burden on our taxpayers. it doesn't make sense. as i said earlier, america can dominate a global economy. just participating isn't enough. i would just suggest that that is all possible in a land that has been so graced by gifts from god that make it possible for us to do that of the the overwhelm thing that can keep it from happening are policies coming out of washington, d.c. i think the chairman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from louisiana reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon.

mr. blumenauer: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. blumenauer: i always enjoy sharing the debate with my good friend from butler, pennsylvania who cares passionately about this country. he has some great ideas. we often find areas that we can agree. i think even the issue that we're debating today could be an area that we could find agreement. because what the president is proposing is not to levy a fee and have the money burned up, the president is proposing a fee to fix america's damaged infrastructure. i know my friend from butler cares passionately about the people that he represents. they are paying a tax today for poor infrastructure. the average american pays three

times with annual damage to their cars than what this fee would be in it were translated -- would be if it were translated into a gas tax increase. i note that his state of pennsylvania actually has imposed an oil franchise fee. and is the equivalent of about another 9 1/2 cents increase. and pennsylvania did that because their infrastructure is damaged. well, that's what we should have as part of this discussion today. again we have a cartoon proposal that assumes that there's just a barrel fee that is just a burden on the american public and not look at what the fee is for. what benefits would accrue. if, again, if we had actually had the ways and means committee meet and discuss the

legislation that was referred to us. we didn't have a hearing on this. one of the things i have pleaded with ways and means leadership for as long as i have been on the committee. let's sit down and actually have meaningful discussions with the men and women who manage, design, build, operate america's infrastructure. if we would have had that debate in this congress, we could have had a -- arrayed before us, the president of the afl-cio, the president of the u.s. chamber of commerce, the president of the -- actually we did have the president of the american trucking association, the one witness the democrats were allowed, who said, raise the tax on my people along with everybody else to rebuild and renew america. but we never had a robust broad

debate before our committee. if we did, we would have had the broadest coalition of any major issue that we considered. the people who design roads. the people who come forward with the asphalt. the people who are the delivery services. we're paying a tremendous price today because america is nalling apart -- falling apart and falling behind. you don't have to go very far to ask people in louisiana or portland, oregon, or houston, texas. we've got a problem. and you know this is an investment that more than pays for itself. again, this isn't money down some rat hole. this is money that would be invested to rebuild and renew america. if we would have had a real hearing on this proposal, which we didn't, we could have had the people from standard & poor's research come in and

review their report. $1.2 billion we spend on infrastructure creates $2 billion of economic activity. these are the people who family-wage jobs from coast to coast that would help revitalize local economies while we make our infrastructure safer and more effective. it isn't just economic activity. that standard & poor's report would have revealed that for -- that $1.2 billion in infrastructure would have reduced the deficit $200 million. but we didn't have that debate. so we have people coming up here on the floor somehow claiming that the president's responsible proposal to fund infrastructure would be an

economic disaster and ignore the fact that we have a infrastructure crisis in this country right now. the american society of civil engineers points out that this is our failure to deal with this is a tax of over $3,000 per family. if we would be honest, have independent experts, if the committee would do its job, we wouldn't be having bizarre debates like this that suggest that the president's proposal would hurt the economy or would be costly. to the contrary, it would strengthen the economy, put millions of people to work at family-wage jobs and improve the conditions of families from coast to coast. ing we're going to have -- we're going to have, i hope, more heard about this in the future, but i hope we don't have proposals that are rushed to the floor without thoughtful committee action and making strange assertions that simply

are not supported by facts. if we impose the fee that the president is talking about to rebuild and renew america, it will create more economic activity. it will put people to work. and it will give americans the infrastructure they deserve and enhance our economic security at home and abroad. i reserve the balance of my time. the s the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, i yield one minute so i can respond to my colleague. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. boust buss let me say i appreciate -- mr. boustany: let me say i appreciate the gentleman's passion for infrastructure and transportation. he well knows the ideal way to solve this is with a specific user fee for the purpose. this particular tax, $10.25 on a barrel of oil, has such a hugely detrimental impact on

all sectors of our economy is not the way to go. this is why i don't think we should entertain as the president has proposed. i think we need thoughtful discussion about this, and that will come in due time. now i'm happy to yield to my colleague from louisiana, a member of the transportation and infrastructure committee, someone i have great respect for, mr. graves. five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i appreciate him bringing this up. you know, mr. speaker, i really regret the fact that this has devolved into a partisan debate or big partisan discussion. everyone in this chamber supports the concept of infrastructure investment. that's not what this is about. that is not what this is about. all of us support infrastructure investment, and all of us agree that we have underfunded infrastructure, that we need more investment in infrastructure. my home state in baton rouge, in the capital renal, we have

the worst traffic in the nation for a mid-sized city. our people sit in traffic 47 hours above the national average at home. it's ridiculous. here's what's going on right now. here's what's going on. the gas tax was set up to be a user fee. it was set up to be a user fee that the more you drove, the more you used the roads, the more you pay for it. that's the way this is supposed to work. and what's happened is the president has come out and offered a proposal that disconnects the user fee. we support a user fee model. we support lock boxing the dollars and making sure they're dedicated to infrastructure as opposed to what happens, for example, another issue that the sponsor of this legislation has worked on, the harbor maintenance trust fund where billions of dollars have been charged under the auspices of one thing and diverted to something else. we support infrastructure investment. now, what's going on right now is we are seeing this continuation of policies out of

this administration that's contrary to american interest. i want to explain that. you see, mr. speaker, the gentleman from oregon states -- state's probably -- i haven't looked into it -- probably dependent upon louisiana to power their cars, to power their vehicles, to power the airplanes that they fly back and forth from washington, d.c., to the west coast. we provide that, but at home in our state of louisiana, we've lost 1/3 of our oil and gas jobs. we are killing this industry because of overregulation. something that just shocks me is last year we listened to the secretary of state john kerry stand up and say we need to allow iran to export their oil so their economy can recover. our secretary of state said that, yet, at the same time at home in louisiana we were prohibited from exporting our oil. why in the world would we treat iran better than louisiana, better than texas, better than

oklahoma and all of these energy producing states across the united states? so you know what we did? after opposition from the white house, we finally lifted the 40-year-old oil export ban. so what happens? within a month and a half we get a proposal from the president to put a $10.25 barrel tax on american oil. what does that do? if we try and take our oil out to global markets, we are immediately met with a premium of 30% to 40% over global prices. it further kills our industry. it further kills our domestic production that we lost 1/3 of the jobs on. i know everyone wants to see us fly solar airplanes. it's not happening right now. we need to continue to rely upon these fuels moving forward. this should not be a partisan debate. we support infrastructure investment. it needs to continue to be a user fee. we should not divorce it from a user fee and not do it in a way that will kill our energy industry in the united states to further increase our

reliance upon foreign energy sources. it is a flawed policy, just like we saw -- this is consistent what we saw last year when the president was standing up saying, give us free trade authority. we need the ability to engage in free trade because we can outcompete other countries and it's standing up overregulating our economy to where we send american workers out there in the work forts trying to compete -- work force trying to compete with other countries. these policies are not consistent and not in the united states' interest. i agree with the gentleman from oregon, we need to work together. we need to work together in a bipartisan manner to come up with a new user fee concept to get us additional dollars for infrastructure. this was a unilateral proposal. this was not subject to hearings, and it's not appropriate. and it's contrary to our economy, it's contrary to american interests, and it's going to increase our trade deficit. mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, i strongly urge that we support this legislation and that we move forward in a bipartisan

manner to fix the user fee concept, to increase the investment in infrastructure to where we can improve our roadways, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from louisiana reserves his time, and the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: well, i appreciate my friend from louisiana and his assessment. you know, actually i agree with him. we should have a different mechanism. i've had proposals to have different approaches to funding infrastructure. some of them have been embedded in the more recent transportation re-authorization, but this is something we never took up in our ways and means committee. i've had legislation there for several congresses. it's time for people to stop saying they support infrastructure and then don't work with us to figure out ways to fund it going forward. mr. speaker, there is nobody in congress in my tenure who has

done more to think about what we do for america's infrastructure. he's had many innovative proposals to fund infrastructure. he's been a tireless champion of it. he's the ranking democrat on the house infrastructure committee, and it's my honor to yield four minutes to congressman peter defazio from the great state of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for four minutes. mr. defazio: i thank my colleague for yielding. well, those watching or listening might be a little confused. what's this about? it's about a meaningless piece of paper. it's called a house concurrent resolution. number 112. and it's expressing the sense of congress that something that the president proposed is bad and they don't like it. well, he proposed it. they're not going to take it up. why are we wasting time on something they won't put on the

schedule and isn't a reality? i don't know. because they're trying to fill up time. not clear to me. what they're doing is continuing to avoid the discussion of how we're going to pay for america's infrastructure. dwight david eisenhower said, let's have a user fee, a gas tax. the last time we increased the 1993, 18.4 rally, cents a gallon. that figured out to about 15% of every gallon you bought. today i pay $2.50 a gallon in oregon last week. federal tax 18.4 cents. that's about seven cents per gallon and those dollars are worth less. they talk about what it's going to do to jobs if we pay tax on oil to pay for infrastructure. we can create one heck of a lot of jobs. every penny for gas tax, every penny raises about $1.7 billion for the federal trust fund.

$1.7 billion under the most conservative estimates, most conservative is more than 25,000 jobs. so one penny, 25,000 jobs. but, no, we can't go there. i proposed we index the existing gas tax to inflation. no, we can't do that. all right. didn't want to do that. i proposed that we tax the fraction of a barrel of oil that goes into taxable transportation uses. not manufacturing, not agriculture, not any of this other stuff they're talking about. i put that proposal forward seven years ago. put it forward to my colleagues and to the white house. burped white house has out something different here, this indiscriminant tax that will go to other uses. but the point is there are thoughtful ways to approach this. america is falling apart. 140,000 bridges nationwide including the highest proportion in the state of

pennsylvania, by the way, which we heard from earlier, are in need of replacement or significant repair. trucks are detouring around them, you know. people are being detoured around them. pothole roads, 40% of the national highway system needs not to be resurfaced, it needs to be dug up it's failed so badly. people are breaking their rims, blowing out tires, damaging their cars. it's costing americans a lot. people are locked in congestion because we're not dealing with the growth in traffic. and oh, let's just look out just a little way outside the capitol here, the worst example here. we are killing people, killing people on our transit systems unnecessarily because congress has failed to partner with the cities of america and the rural areas who have transit. backlog $84 billion to bring transit up to a state of good repair. not help them deal with

congestion to get them around. $84 billion just so we're not killing people. now -- and we're talking about, oh, we can't be competitive. yeah, we're not competitive in the world economy. i talk about how we're not degraded -- we used to have an infrastructure, that's envy of the world, and i talked about how we're becoming third world. my colleague, mr. blumenauer, criticized me. he said, no, no, that's insulting to third-world countries. they are investing a larger percentage of their gross domestic product in infrastructure than we are here in the united states of america and that's true. so now they call us fourth world. we used to be the leader in infrastructure and now we're low everybody, including places like zimbabwe. the answer is no, no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. defazio: no, can't have a barrel tax, no, can't index the gas tax. oh, but we want to talk about a

user fee. what user fee? what user fee? why are we wasting time on this? you're not going to bring it up. you are in charge. you set the agenda. why passing a bill to say we're not going to take something up? you know, i would be kind of embarrassed if i was in the majority and that's what i was wasting time on while people are trapped in traffic, while people are, you know, you know, dying because we can't maintain our transit systems. people are blowing out tires because we can't repair the roads. and oh, we're all for infrastructure until it comes for paying for it. we passed a five-year bill. we paid for it with phony money. we pretended when we have private tax collection it will make money. private tax collection. republicans passed that twice before. kind of pissed off the american people and guess what, it lost money each time and then we put it back in the i.r.s. but, no, this time we're going to use it and pay for infrastructure. give me a break. oh, and let's take the federal reserve makes up money and puts it in a reserve account with a computer. let's take that money and spend

it. you're basically, you know, you're just averting the real problem here which is we need to have a serious discussion about how we're going to pay to rebuild america's infrastructure and become a world leader again and be the envy of the world again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not recognized. he gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. and the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to my friend and colleague from across the potomac river who cares a little bit about environmental policy and infrastructure, mr. beyer. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind members of the house to refrain from vulgarity and the chair recognizes the gentleman how many minutes? three minutes. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this resolution and add my strong opposition to the resolution before also. as i read the text of h.res. 89, whereas by whereas i found

myself in disagreement with virtually every alleged predictive statement. this resolution is framed as long-term economic wisdom yet exemplifies short-term thinking and economic folly. a carbon tax should in fact increase the cost of fossil fuels but will also accelerate the rapidly falling cost of all other fuels, solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, perhaps even nuclear. a carbon tax absolutely must not fall hardest on the poor, the elderly and those with fixed incomes. the best of the carbon tax plans i think representative van hollen's carbon cap and economic dividend returns every dollar gathered by a carbon tax to every u.s. citizen with a social security number. this carbon cap is actually progressive with a net increase in disposable income for most americans and certainly or neediest citizens. this will be a net job creator. the resolution suggests that jobs and businesses will move overseas and that a carbon tax would restrain economic growth,

but british columbia instituted a carbon tax in july, 2008, and in the following five-year period its g.d.p. growth outpaced the rest of noncarbon taxed canada. it should encourage private sector innovation and development but nothing which stimulate and sustain such powerfully. perhaps every family will continue to search out the best ways to minimize production and maximize family welfare. we are creative and adaptive. or a long time conservatives and liberal economist say a carbon tax is an effective way to deal with climate change. let me quote from a recent letter of four conservative and liberal leaders in congress. the most burdensome, most straightforward and most market friendly means of addressing climate change is to price the risks imposed by greenhouse gas

emissions via a tax. this will harness price signals to guide a market response. . that is why it has the support of free market economists, and a large number of multinational private oil and gas companies in the world. one of the policy issues that most divides our congress is the debate on the appropriate level of government regulation, but to quote again from the same letter, and economywide carbon tax that replaces existing regulatory intervention could reduce the cost of climate policy and deregulate the economy. jerry taylor wrote a paper called the conservative case for carbon tax. and he argues that if conservative denial of climate science is granted an ideological diversion to command and control regulation as proposed by the e.p.a. and the clean power plant, conservatives should embrace and promote a revenue neutral carbon tax as a more efficient, less burdensome free market alternative.

mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to oppose both resolutions as unwise, unnecessary, and backward thinking. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: we have no further speakers. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana has no other speakers. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. i blumenauer: mr. speaker, appreciate the opportunity for us to visit on this proposal today. i don't agree with the resolution by any stretch of the imagination, but at least it's an opportunity for us to have a little bit of a conversation that we should have been having all along. i wish, i enjoy debating with my good friend from louisiana. i respect his intellect and his humor. and it's fun to do a little bit of this today. it would have been far better if we would have been able to

do so in the context of a full committee hearing. where we would have been able to dig deeply into these issues. for example, we could have had the transportation construction coalition, and i would request unanimous consent to enter into the record their letter on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. blumenauer: they point out that this resolution fails to mention the intent of the president's proposal is to generate resources to stabilize and grow federal surface transportation investment. it does not remind members that the reoccurring highway trust fund revenue shortfall has caused repeated disruptions to their state's transportation program over the last eight years. temporary have 14

extensions of the surface transportation act. and the only way we got the fast act passed was as my friend, congressman defazio pointed out, was with a series of budget gimmicks. not real solutions. and at the end of 2020, when that legislation expires, we're going to face a $20 billion nnual deficit. the per barrel oil tax of this magnitude, according to the transportation construction coalition, would be a real and permanent solution. we wouldn't be facing our tails all the time. and its nexus to highway users as a revenue mechanism is far more honest than the budget gimmicks, deficit spending, and burdens placed on nontransportation sectors of the economy that congress has deployed since 2008 to keep

investment essentially static. primarily -- they state, and i quote, we believe all potential revenue options should be on the table. it is incumbent upon anybody who wants to disagree with the president to bring forward an alternative way to meet the same objective. which sadly has not happened and we haven't even been able to discuss it in the ways and means committee. they say, and i quote, primarily disparaging one significant solution just to make it -- just makes it more difficult to resolve a problem that has plagued congress for more than a decade. rather than making rhetorical statements about taxes five months before an election, congress should be working in a bipartisan manner to ensure that a permanent mechanism to

preserve and grow federal highway and public transportation investment is in place well before the department of transportation starts warning states about the next program shutdown. i seldom read statements from other groups on the floor, but i couldn't have said it better myself. that's what we should be doing rather than this exercise today. we completely misses the point. this oil barrel fee may not be perfect, but it would solve, go a long way towards solving the problem. would put millions of americans to work at family-wage jobs. it will create more economic ctivity than the cost of the program. and for every $1.2 billion that it generates, it will generate $2 billion of economic activity

and it will reduce the deficit $200 million. if we had actually had the committee do a deep dive, spend a week working on it, this would have been on the table, and i think we would have found wide areas of agreement. rather than engage in this exercise regarding h.con. resolution 112, i'd like to think of what ronald reagan did in 1982. the economy was pretty rocky in 1982. there were some contentious politics in congress. ronald reagan on his thanksgiving day speech, november 29, 1982, called on congress to come back from their thanksgiving recess and work together to more than double the federal gas tax. because the little cost in one

of the best speeches, fragely, i ever heard anybody give, he pointed out the little cost to the american consumer would be more than offset by damage, for example, for a couple pair of shock absorbers. congress reacted to president reagan's call for a gas tax increase on a bipartisan basis. it more than doubled it. it added hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it improved the quality of life for americans and did so keeping the bipartisan tradition surrounding infrastructure. rather than this partisan partial debate, we ought to go back to the basics, follow ronald reagan's example, have a spirited comprehensive approach to solving the problem rather than tilting at straw men. i strongly urge rejection of the resolution, but more important, rejection of this

approach to continue to stick our head in the sand and avoid our responsibility to fund american infrastructure and rebuild and renew this great contry. thank you, i -- country. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon yields back. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman's passion and intellect. we have had many conversations. we do agree we have to fix our deplorable infrastructure. he and i have worked on some of these things together. but i have to say this, when i was in medical school, you know i'm a heart surgeon. years of medical training. one of the things we learned a long time ago in medicine was a treatment that makes the problem worse. that's what this $10.25 tax would do on a barrel of oil. i've often referred to that

plaque above the speaker's desk, a quote from daniel webster. the first line says, let us develop the resources of our land. and i think it goes beyond simple concepts of highway transportations. all the resources of our land. we should be embracing the energy revolution that's been unleashed by american innovation. not taxing it into oblivion. not overregulating it into oblivion. this is offered -- this has offered tremendous hope not only for americans but for the world over to offer a new view of energy security. taking us away from the iranian approach or the opec approach or a russian view where they hoard resources and they use this for their own political purposes. america can reshape it by embracing this energy revolution. and we can grow the economy. create jobs. improve wages. and have the revenues to take

care of our infrastructure. but the gentleman well knows ronald reagan believed that a user fee was important, a specific user fee. i think he and i would both agree that a specific user fee is important for infrastructure. this is not a user fee. this is a detrimental tax on american competitiveness, on american jobs, on american wages, on american energy security, and it hits at the very foundation of our national security. it's the wrong way to go. it is a harmful solution. it's not pro-growth. we're not proud of the economic performance we have seen in recent months. 0.8% economic growth in the first quarter? ly 38,000 jobs, nonfarm jobs created last month? according to the bureau of labor. that's deplorable. america must lead. and america can lead by embracing the energy revolution. let's look at all the impacts

it will have across our entire economy. then we can fashion specific solutions for transportation and infrastructure and other the things we need to do. that's what i stand here for. that's why i oppose this tax. that's why i think this debate was important. and that's why i think it's very important to go on record opposing this very detrimental tax. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 767, the previous question is ordered. all those -- the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution. all those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. boustany: i'd like the yeas and nays on this. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on the question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on further consideration of h.r. 5325, and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 771, and rule 18 rning the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r.

5325. will the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, please take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5325, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2017, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, june 9, 2016, the chair announced it was in order to consider amendment number 27 printed in -- amendment number 7 printed in house report number 144-611. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 114-611. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have an amendment

at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report number 114-611, offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 771, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. . mr. gosar: i rise today to offer a commonsense amendment that will prevent wasteful spending in this bill and unsolicited delivery of printed house of the telephone directory to 435 house congressional offices. i hold here the united states house of representatives telephone directory for 2016. this book presented by the government publishing office contains 378 pages of names, addresses, and the contact information for members of congress and their staff. get a deal erk does in printing, it is sold to the

public for $52. this year, all 435 house members' offices received this stack, this whole stack right here. unsolicitted from the office of the clerk. 20 copies in total for each office. each year we get this directly and to be frank is not needed. all the information is readily available online both publicly and through house websites. to make matter worse -- matters worse, often the information is out of date by the time we receive the bound copies. for example, by the time i received my copy the information for my staff was no longer accurate. 20% of all government documents originate in digital form and are distributed electronically but not printed this same report estimates it costs $3 per page

for prepress costs for miscellaneous publications, of which this is one. i don't think i need to remind anyone here that we are currently $19 trillion plus in debt as a result of excessive and unnecessary spending. i'll be the first to admit that that -- that this amendment will not be saving millions this year alone but in a time of financial crisis we should remain vigilant in every -- and save every whenny we can this become ois unnecessary and its uncysted distribution in mass is excessive why does each d.c. office get 20 copies? my d.c. office only has eight mes -- employees, none of which utilize the wasteful directories. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment which will prevent future unsolicitted deliveries of these directories to every house office on the hill. with that, i are eserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member wish to speak in opposition?

does the n is on -- gentleman from arizona yield back? mr. gosar: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to -- is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 114-611. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the desk, number 9. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. clarence: amendment number 9, printed in house report 114-611, offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i rise today to offer another common sense amendment

to prevent wasteful spending in this bill by preventing the delivery of this pact of nearly ,000 pages containing the president's budget request to 435 house congressional offices. in its 2017 budget justification, the government publishing office states, and i quote, since 2012, g.p.o. has made the annual budget available as a mobile app. the f.y. 2016 budget app, released january, 2015, provided users with access to the text and images of the budget including the budget message of the president, the information on the president's priorities, and budget overviews organized by agency this app provides and where sum mear tables additional books of the budget, including the analytical perspectives index and historic am tables are available, end quote this package which contains the president's budget budget, are he

available on your phone on an app for free. further mor, they are available n their entirety online at www .omb.gov. each individual copy sells online for $38, $56, and $79 respectively. these documents comprise 170 pages, 409 page, and 1,413 pages respectively. o.m.b. orders one copy of the budget for all 435 members of the house and this publication is then printed by the government publishing office and delivered by house postal operations. in a time when our nation is facing a fiscal crisis and has a $19 trillion-plus debt as a result of excessive and unnecessary spending, we should not be squandering more money printing nearly 2,000 pages of the president's budget that most members throw in the trash, recycle or don't even open. furthermore this massive document is not even a serious

proposal and has been routinely rejected with strong bipartisan support. the senate defeated president's 98-0esident obama's budget in 2012, and 98-1 last year. this amendment will not save millions of dollars and is not flashy but we should remember the old ataj, a penny saved is a penny earned. the distribution of the president's fwouget 435 house offices is excess i. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. all these publications are online in their entirety where they're more easily searchable, and on a free mobile app. i thank the chair and ranking member for their work on this bill and i reserve. the chair: does any member wish to speak in opposition to the amendment? mr. gosar: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from

arizona yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 114-611. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. grayson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. clarence: amendment number 10, printed in house report 114-611, offered by mr. grayson of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 771, the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, and a member opposed each will control five maines. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: this is an amendment that is itent call to by -- identical

to other amendments inserted by voice vote into other authorization bills. i hope that this amendment remains noncontroversial as it has been and will again be passed unanimously by the house. i reserve the balance of my timeful the chair: the gentleman reserves. -- does any member wish to speak in opposition to the amendment? does the gentleman yield back? mr. grayson: i yield to my -- colleague, debbie wasserman schultz. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: this is a commonsense amendment which would prohibit funding from this bill from being used to pay contractors engaged in fraud or tax fraud. i urbling members to support this amendment. mr. grayson: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 114-611. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. clarence: amendment number 11 printed in house report 114-611, offered by mr. takano of california. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. takano, and a member opposed each will control five maines -- minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. takano: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today in support of my amendment which would restore funding to the office of technology assessment or o.t.a. the foundation for good policy is accurate and objective analysis and for more than two decades, the o.t.a. set that

foundation by providing relevant, unbiased technical and scientific assessments for members of congress and staff. but in 1995, the o.t.a. was defunded, stripping congress of a valuable resource to understand both the emerging technologies as well as the nuances of the legislative process. in its absence, the need for o.t.a. has only grown. many of the issues o.t.a. studied 20 years ago are even more pressing today. antibiotic resistant bacteria, electronic surveillance in the digital. and testing in america's schools. these are the complex challenges our nation will continue to face and congress should have access to the thorough and insightful analysis o.t.a. can provide. investing in the o.t.a. now will actually save us money in the future. in the last year operated, o.t.a.'s budget was $22 million.

but its studies on the synthetic fuels corporation saved taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. our amendment restores a modest $2.5 million to the o.t.a. account for salaries and expenses to begin rebuilding the office. the cost is offset by reduction of the same amount to the a.o.c.'s capitol construction and operations account, which is an administrative account. so this will not take resources from specific construction projects. madam chair a great surgeon does not operate without modern tools. a master chef does not cook without fresh ingredients. member of congress should not make policy decisions without relevant and unbiased information. and with that in mind, i urge you to vote yes on this amendment to restore funding to the office of technology assessment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does anyone wish to speak in opposition? >> yes, ma'am. chip the gentleman from georgia

is reck -- the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. graves: i want to thank the gentleman from california. i know he has great intentions with this amendment. as we discuss the legislative branch appropriations bill, we're discussing what's important to the house of representatives because that's what this bill reflects. i know that this office was created in 1972 and was eliminated years later. but in 19 2, i was 2 years old. technology was very different. i see no need to recreate something that was started dealing with technology when i was years old, almost two decades prior to the first website. currently these tasks are being handled by g.a.o. they're being handled sufficiently. they're being handled with $.5 million. we have yet to receive any complaints. if there's a more comp he rens -- comprehensive need for technology assessment, that's a bigger discussion and that's a discussion that should take

place of the legislative branch committee's jurisdiction. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from california has three minutes remaining. mr. takano: madam chair, i yield a minute to my ranking member, debbie wasserman schultz. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise in support of the amendment to revive the office of technology assessment. when i was chair of the subcommittee we tried to restart it within the government accountability office. in fiscal years 2008 and 2010, i included $2.5 million in this bill to support that initiative. however the supporters of the amendment make the case that it should be part of congress itself rather than g.a.o. in order to provide objective analysis of complex and technical issues which certainly i think we all agree actually exist today. we are not going -- trying to go back to 0th century technology, we have important issues that

need to be reviewed and we don't always have the expertise to be able to make sure we can get that cogent analysis. particularly when we're still at funding levels back to 2010 in the legislative branch appropriations bill. this is a bill in which we are tackling copyright modernization, specifically dealing with technology challenges and an o.t.a. would add to the rigor of our analysis on that topic and others and i urge support of the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california has two minutes remaining. mr. takano: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. graves: our focus is the ledge -- in the legislative branch appropriations bill is to be responsible with taxpayer dollars. during these lean times, we have led really -- led the charge when it comes to reducing spending from our operations. down 13.2%.

we've eliminated some agencies and programs that even this bill eliminates the open world center. i don't see this as a time we need to restart a new program that was eliminated 20 years ago. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: will you remind me how much time i have left? the chair: two minutes. mr. takano: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from illinois, a member of the science committee and respected physicist, representative foster. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. foster: thank you, madam chair. thank you also to my friend from california, mr. takano, and to my colleagues, representatives esty and lujan for helping to bring this am to the floor. this -- this amendment to the floor. this amendment would provide $2.5 million to resurrect the office of technology assessment to revive this crucial service of providing congress with

nonbias reports on a wide range of issues on science and technology. this office is no less necessary today than when it first started in 1972. as technology continues to advance at an increasingly rapid pace and our partisan divide seems to grow deeper, congress needs this now more than ever. i ask my colleagues to consider just one single, one of the recommendations from the office of technology assessment, that he united states rapidly adopt standardized electronic medical records. had this been done we would have been able to save hundreds of millions of dollars in medical costs over the last decades, and hundreds of thousands of lives of americans through prevention of preventable medical accidents. so i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to restore this vital source of credible and nonpartisan scientific expertise in congress. thank you. i yield back my time to mr.

takano. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: madam chair, i reiterate my support for the office of technology assessment. congress does not suffer from a lack of information but it suffers from a lack of trusted information. to help make wise policy decisions. we need information that is not spun even by our own agencies, the f.b.i. or other agencies. we need information that's not spun from particular sectors. this agency, this office of technology assistment will be overseen by a bipartisan group of lawmakers who will vet the experts that work for it. madam chair, thank you very much for this opportunity. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, madam chair. i'll just again thank my colleague from california for his thoughtful and well debated

argument here for the need as he sees it. i reiterate that the g.a.o. provides a val ooble service -- valuable service i believe can continue to do the job that's necessary. in these lean times i encourage our colleagues oppose this amendment not just of the gentleman from california, but because of the lean times and concept which it's just not the right time to adopt that. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: i respectfully ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 12 printed in ouse report 114-611. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. russell: madam speaker, i 5325.o support h.r. the chair: does gentleman offer an amendment? mr. russell: yes. amendment is at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12, offered by mr. russell of oklahoma. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 771, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. russell: thank you, madam speaker. fiscal year 2017 legislative branch appropriations act contains several excellent provisions to cut down on unnecessary printing of paper documents in the house of representatives.

section 102 of the act, for example, prohibits printed copies of bills from being sent to members of congress unless they specifically request them. this amendment is very similar. it prohibits the federal register from being sent to members unless they specifically request it. it uses the exact same terminology as section 102. the federal register, while important, because it contains rules, proposals, and various other publications released by federal agencies, unfortunately every business day members of congress receive paper copies of this register while it is available online, and sadly most of these hundreds of pages n length end up in the waist -- waste bin. the federal register being available online is a better way to go with this measure. the government printing office sends 617 copies of the register every single day to house members alone.

this includes subscriptions for personal offices, committees, archival offices, and others. each annual prescription costs the government printing office $750 a year to produce in paper and inc. -- ink alone. these costs are charged to federal agencies that publish in the federal register. among all the members of congress and six nonvoting members in the house, paying for annual subscription for all these costs and other estimated delivery costs exceeds $400,000 annual. to put that in perspective, that could pay for a dozen special forces sergeants that are defending our country abroad in their annual salary. none of the funds made available by this act may be used to deliver a printed copy of the federal register to a member of the house of representatives to include a delegate or resident commissioner to congress unless the members request specifically a copy.

this simple amendment will build on the reforms of the congressional printing of sections 102 and 103 and 105, allowing federal agencies to better use precious taxpayer dollars. i encourage support for this amendment, madam speaker, because once again we will never win the war on our national debt in some giant spending measure that will only divide us within our respective parties and within the chamber. instead, we will win it by combating waste one agency at a time. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. does anyone wish to speak in opposition to the amendment? does the gentleman from oklahoma wish to yield back his time? mr. russell: i do, madam speaker. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in house report 114-611. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? mr. pearce: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report number 114-611. offered by mr. pearce of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 771, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam chair, despite what has been said about this amendment, it is very simple. there are two bodies that are funded through the appropriations process and the u.s. congress. one is the house committee on ethics. that's the one that we all know as members of congress, but there's another body called the office of congressional ethics that works pretty well outside

of this body. now, my amendment is simply taking this year's increase away from that outside body. again, no change to the ethical process inside the body. one that we're all familiar with and feel accountable to. but we're deducting $191,000 from this outside group because in this time of budget confraintstrantse -- constraints when i look at my office and all the other offices, our spending has been reduced, our budgets have been reduced by approximately $200,000 since 2008. now, we have to deal with 750 to 900,000 constituents. i have five field offices. generalry we make as a staff somewhere between $50,000 and 100,000 miles per year to deal with our constituents. our budgets have gone down $200,000 with a small increase this year of $12,000. and then on the other hand i see $191,000 increase on this outside group.

i just feel like that that's extraordinary and would suggest that the appropriations bill 5325 be reduced in that amendment in this budget area. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member wish to speak in opposition? the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam chair. i rise to claim time in opposition. the office of congressional ethics is crucial to ensuring accountability and transparency in this boddy. any attempts to cuts its budget would only serve to erode our constituents' trust and faith in congress, which certainly has already suffered significant amount of erosion. as many of my colleagues will recall, the house created the office of congressional ethics nearly a decade ago to improve the integrity of the ethics process in the house. the house was recovering from the mark foley scandal and clear we needed to do something to rebuild the america people's trust in their elected representatives. that is why o.c.e.'s core mission is to assist the house

in upholding high ethical standards with an eye toward increasing transparency and providing information to the public. i acknowledge that there are proposals to improve the operations of the office of congressional ethics, and we should certainly take a look at those, madam chair, but it is commonsense that these improvements can't be made by cut funding for the office we're seeking to improve. moreover, the issue of congressional ethics is far too important to reduce to a 10-minute debate on the house floor. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. pearce: madam chair, i find it odd that we're -- we receive the words today on the house floor that we're going to increase transparency through the office of congressional ethics. that's exactly what they do not do. the sixth amendment of the constitution gives us the right to -- it gives the confused the

right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. and i'll quote from a letter. a legal letter that was given to the o.c.e. this investigation is again revealed due process deficiencies within the o.c.e. rules. while the sixth amendment of the united states provides for the fundamental right to confront one's accusers, the o.c.e. rules do not allow to confront the accused with the accusers. secondly, the sixth amendment gives us the right to a lawyer. i will again quote from paul, an employee of the o.c.e., in my email to my chief of staff. i forgot to mention on our call that should you retain a lawyer for the office, that lawyer would most likely be prohibited under our rules from representing a subject of this review to the extent that subject is a current staff member. so the o.c.e. in their email to

our office says, you don't have the right to legal counsel, even though the sixth amendment of the constitution says that you do. the third thing that i see is that the nature of the charges, we should be able find out the nature of the charges under the sixth amendment, and again our experience and the experience of others who have confronted o.c.e. realizes you do not know what the charges are. you are not going to get a lawyer. and you cannot know who is accusing you. this does not hardly meet the word transparency that my good friend alluded to. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam chair. while i can appreciate the gentleman's concerns, he's listed a number of substantive differences of opinion with the way the office of congressional ethics handles their work.

the appropriations bill is not the appropriate place to address those. the office of congressional ethics was created through legislation. it is a substantive issue. and it is one that should be debated and discussed on an authorizing bill not on the funding of the legislative branch. you don't just cut the budget of an office with whom your decisions -- with whom decisions you disagree. we can debate and discuss these concerns, but cutting $190,000 out of the o.c.e.'s budget is not the way to address that. for those reasons and the fact that the public already has some pretty significant concerns with the way we do business here, this would send the wrong message. and if we're going to have this discussion, we should do it in a forum that allows for more robust discussion and debate how to address those challenges long-term. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida reserves.

the gentleman from new mexico has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. pearce: thank you, madam chair. i would remind my friend and colleague that this amendment only addresses the funding. i'll simply use my time to advertise for this agency in the way that they operate. i would like to quote from an email i got this morning. i cried when i saw what your boss did on the leg branch, i was unfairly targeted for an action in 2008 which had been approved by the ethics committee. o.c.e. admitted there was no evidence. i complied with every provision of the policy without exception. one of the staffers that was being investigated in this same circumstance left the hill early on. i considered doing the same thing. i certainly had to endure all the phases of the o.c.e. process, including referral to the ethics committee. the ethics committee dismissed

the case against us but it is by far the worst thing that's ever happened to me in my 21 years on the hill. i'm a strong person with resources but was an emotional wreck over losing my credibility over an ethics investigation. i cried virtually every day and the prolonged process over many, many month months took a toll on my life. and we're asking to give this agency $190,000 to continue this action. i believe this debate is exactly called for on this bill and this spending. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. i urge people to support this amendment to give notice to the o.c.e. that we're watching what you're doing. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman has three minutes remaining. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam chair. i have tremendous respect for the gentleman from new mexico and his concerns for the operation of the office of

congressional eth exs. however, all we'd be doing here if his amendment were to pass is to cut -- is to send $190,000 message to the office of congressional ethics. it would not achi any of the gentleman's goals and if we do need to take a look at the way the office functions, then there is a process for doing that. the only thing we achieve here by departmenting this amendment is cutting the budget by $190,000. so if the majority believes that it is important to take a look at the function of this office, then there is a process for doing that. to take up legislation, to change the way they do business. that's certainly appropriation. but we don't accomplish any of the gentleman's goals by cutting $190,000. in fact, the public has certainly already spent multi-- sent multiple messages to the united states congress that they don't have a lot of confidence in the business we're doing here. this would send the absolute wrong mess abbling back to them that we don't get it. i urge the members to oppose the

amendment because it would not achieve the gentleman's goals and because we have a more appropriate place to actually achieve those goals in the authorizing committee. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. wasserman schultz: madam chair. i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico will e postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 114-611 on which further po seedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number by mr. elson of minnesota. amendment number 6 by mrs. blackburn of tennessee.

amendment number 11 by mr. takano of california. amendment number 13 by mr. pears of new mexico. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number printed in house report 114-611 by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. elson, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redez egg nate the amendment. clarence: amendment number 2 printed in 40us report 114-611, offered by mr. elson of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. fupped fund [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 157, the nays are 241. the amendment is not passed. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-611 by the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-611 offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 165, the nays are 237. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in the house report 114-611. by the gentleman from california, mr. takano, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 114-611 offered by mr. takano of california. the chair: a record vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation

with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 179, the nays are 223. the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 13 printed in house report 114-611 by the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pears, on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 114-611. offered by mr. pears of new mexico. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 138, the nays are 268.

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 137, the nays are 270. the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments, under the rule, the committee rises.

the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5325 and reports it back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill l.r. 5325 and pursuant to house resolution 771, reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered is a separate vote demand on any amendment demanded from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the legislative barrage for the fiscal year ending september 30, 017, and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will please remove their conversations from the house floor. he house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed to it in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. castro moves to recommit the bill h.r. 5325 back to the committee on appropriations to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. in the capitol construction and authorization amendment, on page 6, after the dollar amount

insert $200,000. in the library of congress salaries and expenses account, page 25, line 24, after the first dollar amount insert, increased by $200,000. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will please remove their conversations with thefish from the house floor. the house will be in order. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. castro: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentlelady is are correct, the house is not in order. members, please remove your conversations from the house floor. he house will be in order. mr. castro: mr. speaker, before i speak on this amendment i'd like to allow my colleague, ranking member wasserman schultz, who has been a strong advocate and lead own this

issue, an opportunity to say a few words. i'll briefly yield to her. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise to join my colleague, congressman joaquin castro, to urge the majority to allow the house to strike a destructive political provision that's made its bayway into the ledge itive barrage. if those listening wonder why we are talking about the pejorative term illegal aliens, you are not alone. this bill contains language to continue to use the term illegal aliens to the extent practicable. even though the library said there's no practicable means to do it. the library changes subject headings every year. the library once used the term negro, then after ro american, and then african-american.

they didn't wait until congress had changed all the u.s. code to change that. that bill passed with a unanimous vote including the yes vote of the chairman of the legislative branch subcommittee. >> the house is not in order. the chair: the gentlewoman will -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is correct, the house is not in order. the house will be in order. members please remove your conversations from the house floor. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: if we remove negro and oriental in the subject headings of the library of congress before we change the u.s. code, we should do the same now for the pejorative term illegal aliens. the library is our first established cultural institution. it's hard to imagine why my colleagues want to tie its hands to slow manufacture moving u.s. code. if the majority is serious about debating u.s. code, let's have

the republican rules committee bring up the castro bill that would remove the hurtful and inaccurate term illegal aliens once and for all from the u.s. code. we are members of congress. not captains of the word police. free the card catalog and depoliticize this bill. i yield to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. castro: thank you, mr. speaker. can i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has two minutes and 35 seconds remaining. mr. castro: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. castro: in 1922, the only grandparent i would come to know came from mexico to the united states. she was not a rapist or a murderer or an alien.

she was a 6-year-old girl whose parents had died around the time of the mexican revolution and the closest relatives who could take them in, her and her sister, we are in texas. and i bet if we went around this chamber, i know there would be beautiful stories, similar stories of ancestors who came from italy and germany and ireland and africa and asia and every corner of the world. they are the immigrants to this country, they are the strength of this country. and language matters. recently, the library of congress decided to retire the term illegal alien because it's dehumanizing. for the first time in american history, today, the congress is ready to interfere with the business of the library of ongress. in the years of the congress and

the library, language has evolved. that's why we've done away with terms like negro and oriental and lunatic and retarded. because we understand that even words that start off as neutral descriptors can, over time, become used as verbal weapons d knives to inflict pain and disrespect and sow division. that is the case today. and there are times in our country's history where our politics have also been a race to the bottom. those irish ancestors were granted by sign -- greeted by signs that no irish need apply in cities like new york and boston. the japanese and german and italian americans even were interned in world war ii. chinese for ex--- were excluded from this country for decades. around during the eisenhower administration, many hispanics in this country were rounded up and deported to mexico, even if

they were american. what i'm asking is for us not to fuel the flames of this season, for taos take a better course and do the right thing. i'm asking to you support this tion to recommit because the words illegal alien will be retired. this will change. whether it's now or six months from now or 10 years from now. the question for all of us is whether we today will do the right thing or whether a few years from now we're apologizing for doing the wrong thing. please support this motion to recommit. and do the right thing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm going to make this quick because i want to make sure the hows knows of what offensive language is in this bill. it's so offensive that i'm going to read it. this is it. right here. to the extent practicable, the

committee instructs the library to maintain certain subject headings that reflect terminology used in title 8 of the u.s. code. that's what's so offensive to the minority party. for 7 1/2 years we've had a president that wants to ignore the sfwent of our laws of our land -- intent of our laws of our land. we will not allow this body, this house, to ignore the definitions nor the words of the laws that have been voted on in this body, passed by the senate and signed into law -- signed into law by the president. i'm asking this body, vote no on this motion to recommit. volt -- vote yes to uphold the lass of this land and vote yes -- laws of this land and vote yes on final pass and have a good wednesday. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested.

those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clalls 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill. adoption of house concurrent resolution 89, and adoption of house concurrent resolution 112. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 170, the nays are 237. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233, the nays are 175. the bill the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 233, the nays are 175. the bill is adopted. the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 89, concurrent resolution, expressing the sense of congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the united states economy. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] ressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 237, the nays are 163, with two voting present. the concurrent resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house concurrent resolution 112 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title.

the clerk: concurrent resolution expressing the sense of congress opposing the president's proposed $10 on every barrel of oil. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 253rk the nays are 144. two are recorded as present. the -- the concurrent resolution is agreed to. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek

recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker m i'm pleased to yield to my friend, mr. mccarthy, the majority leader for the information regarding the schedule. mr. mccarthy: -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman is yield -- for yielding and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccarthy: on monday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will neat at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. members are advised that later votes than normal are possible on thursday and to keep their travel plans flexible. no votes are expected in the house on friday.

mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. mr. speaker, the house will consider h.r. 5053, preventing the i.r.s. abuse and protecting free speech act, sponsored by representative roskam this commonsense bill prohibits the i.r.s. from collecting toe nor information which has been used by the i.r.s. to improperly target tax exempt organizations. finally, mr. speaker, the house will consider h.r. 5293, the f.y. 2017 defense appropriation bill, sponsored by representative rodney frelinghuysen. we expect a large number of amendments on this bill so members are reminded to keep their travel schedules flexible at the end of next week. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. this week or today we

considered a third appropriation bill. it was a structured rule, which is not uncommon on both sides of the aisle, to have a structured rule. but next week the gentleman has announced the defense appropriation bill. i'm wondering whether or not that will be an open rule so that amendments will be able to be offered by members without constraint of being limited? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. to answer the gentleman's question, yes, that will come under a structured rule so members will be able to offer amendments. but before the rules committee. and have the debate on the floor. for the passage of the bill. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. does the gentleman mean by ructured rule that it will simply require amendments to be filed as of a certain time but there will be no restriction on amendments that will be in order? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. structured rule, exactly the same as we've done structured rules always before. amendments will be presented to the rules committee, be debated and then brought to the floor for a vote on the bill. mr. hoyer: just to -- thank you very much. but to further clarify, my understanding therefore is a -- the leader expects the rules committee to choose which amendments will be made in order on the bill, is that accurate think? yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. yes, it will be a very fair, wide-open process, just in the rules committee, looking at which bills. those that have not been able to be offered already in committee, where these bills have gone through subcommittee, full committee, with amendments being offered, and then it will be brought to the floor, so we can get the work done and move a bill forward. mr. hoyer: i understand what the gentleman is saying. and it appears to me that it is an abandonment of the speaker's

and others' representations that when appropriation bills are brought to the floor they'll be brought to the floor with an open rule, or a rule that will allow any and all amendments that seek to be offered by members on both sides of the aisle to be offered. from the gentleman's explanation, i believe that is not the case and a deviation from the announced policy at the beginning of the year, it seems to me, mr. leader, madam speaker, that it's a pragmatic udgment that some amendments are making it difficult on your side of the aisle. someone who's been here for some period of time, that's been my experience, when we were in the majority, that your side under open rules offered a lot of very difficult amendments that we had to confront.

the maloney amendment obviously was a difficult amendment for you to confront on your side and led to the defeat of apparently one of the -- your bills, the energy and water bill, which failed on this floor. but would i not be correct in saying this is a policy that's now being pursued that is different from that which was represented at the beginning of the year where the floor would be open to any and all amendments and would be considered by the house on their merits? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman knows, he had sat in this position that i have today as majority leader in the past, the gentleman knows of his history of what he brought bills to the floor and in which manner in which they did. but if i could be frank with my friend, i'm a little disappointed. this is not a place to play politics. this is not about one amendment.

we have a process for amendments for members that are serious about making a passionate, making an argument for a bill, not to kill a bill, and not to have an amendment pass and an entire side of the aisle then vote against it. what we are bringing forth is a process that the american people want to see. that they want to see ideas get brought, debated, and moved forward. if you look at the appropriation process in the senate, they have amendments that go through. if the gentleman wants to go back and recite history of the number of bills that were open here and under his leadership, i'm more than welcome to do that. but we should be honest with one another. if you want to offer an amendment and you want to debate the bill and you want to make the bill, in your view,

better, i would suspect that if you win an amendment, you'd vote for the bill. you have a long history here. that's really probably the history that you remember as well. i want to see the work get done. so any ideas that get brought forth in committee, they are debated. they are offered and they are voted on. ideas will get brought forth further as the bill comes brought an amendment to the floor, so be it. but we're not going to sit back with people who want to play politics on the outside to play politics on the inside. i just expect more. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. of course, 130 of his members voted against that bill. 130 of his members rejected that bill. i'm hard pressed to think that

the majority leader believes that our no votes were political and his no votes were principled. that defies logic from my standpoint. the fact of the matter is that bill lost because your members didn't support it. you have 247 members, mr. majority leader, and i do remember being majority leader. and very frankly, i remember getting 218 democrats for almost every bill we brought to the floor. and so we passed them with our votes. and if 130 of your members had not voted against your own bill, it would have passed. and there should be no, madam peaker, misrepresentation or misinformation about how seriously mr. maloney cared about his amendment. none whatsoever. and in point of fact, it enjoyed ultimately the majority of support on this floor. but i will tell the gentleman,

i've been here for some time, he's correct on that, and i do offer amendments from time to time to improve bills that even as improved i don't like. so the final analysis, although i've improved them and been successful in adopting amendments, i still do not think the bills are appropriate to pass and go into law. this conversation started with the fact that we need to be able to offer ideas. very frankly, i understand the gentleman's position, but today we just voted on two bills that aren't going anywhere, sense of congress, that you're not going to bring to the floor. they have no chance of passage. what did you want to do? you wanted to play politics. i don't mean you personally, and, madam speaker, but it was a political effort solely to bring two bills to the floor, some sense of congress, both of which i voted against, because i thought they were playing

politics, and so the accusation somehow that we are playing politics because we offer amendments that we care deeply about, that we want to see no discrimination allowed in our bills, and that we want to defeat those constraints on an executive order says to people who do business with the federal government, you can't discriminate against people, i will tell my friend, yes, we're going to continue to try to do that. of course on this last bill, we were not allowed to do that. we were shut down. and shut up. and precluded to vote on that particular piece of legislation. so when i tell my friend that this session started with a pledge for open rules on appropriation bills, i understand the gentleman's problem. we had structured rules when we were in charge as well.

we had not made any great representation about open rules. therefore we too wanted to get the business of the house done and, yes, i remember well 2007, when we were confronted with filibuster by amendment. and at some point in time, after 10 bills had been very difficult to pass, on the last two bills we did have a structured rule. but i tell my friend that i hope that he will accord to mr. maloney or others the sincerity of their objectives and notwithstanding the fact that their amendment is adopted and articulate what is i think is proper policy for our country, that is not to discriminate, everybody in our country apparently doesn't believe that, but mr. maloney does, and i want to make it very clear that he was very sincere in that amendment. those of us who voted for it were very sincere in that amendment. it was not politics. it was values.

i want to congratulate the majority leader, moving on, on his work on puerto rico. that was a difficult issue for us both. difficult issue for our caucuses. difficult issue for the executive department. we worked together, we got a bill done that certainly was not our favorite. it included a lot of stuff in there that we didn't like. but i will tell you, we didn't play politics on that. we only lost 24 slow thes. -- votes. on a bill that was largely constructed by your side of the aisle in terms of some of the issues unrelated per se to restructuring of the debt, which was the intent of the bill. i want you to know, mr. leader, you and i have a good relationship, i have great respect for you, we're going to intend to try to work together on issues like that that are difficult but necessary for the american people. toward that end, can the

gentleman tell me what the tatus of the zika issue is with reference to getting resources as quickly as possible to confront this challenge to our country's health? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: thank you for yielding. i do want to thank the gentleman for his work on the puerto rico crisis. this is something that we worked together on very early, from all sides, making sure that we protected the taxpayers from a bailout and i think we met all criteria for helping puerto rico move forward and protecting the taxpayers. the gentleman is correct on zika. we want to make sure funding is there, as the gentleman knows, there is currently funding and as the gentleman knows we have passed a bill on zika and we have named our conferees. it's my understanding that the senate is just now naming the conferees. i am very hopeful that we can get that conference done very quickly and brought back to the floor. as of now, i would -- i had met

with the director of c.d.c. just on our -- when we debattered on the district work period. there's -- departed on the district work period. there's enough resources currently but we need to get our work done as rapidly as possible. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. obviously this is an emergency confronting our country. dr. frieden of c.d.c., a doctor of the n.i.h. and so many others have raised this as a critically important issue for us to confront and confront now. so that i would join the majority leader in whatever efforts are necessary to accelerate this process and give to the administration and our health officials the resources they need to protect the american people. madam speaker, in closing, and i will certainly yield to the majority leader, i rise to say that we have lost a great

american, perhaps one of the most famous americans in the world. in muhammad ali. muhammad ali was for a portion of his life reviled for the decisions he took. but through his life he reflected a commitment to could e that all of us well follow. an example of, even in the light of extraordinary things from his fellow citizens said, this is what i believe, this is where i stand, and i am prepared to take the consequences. many of us believe he was probably the greatest fighter that ever lived. and as he fought so successfully in the ring, he fought successfully for his principles and his convictions. and i know that the american people and the house of

representatives would reflect the respect and affection for a great athlete, a great human being, and a great american. if my friend wanted to make a comment, i will yield to him. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for recognizing the life of muhammad ali. . he touched those who met him and those who did not. and there are so many stories out there what he was able to do and stand up for what believed. i think so many times when you look at his life from where he rows to and where he stayed rooted in, his belief in this country, his belief and the courage to fight for what he believed in. there was a quote he made, i just read it today, it was put up by forbes as the quote of the week. but he once said, he who is not courageous to take risks will

not accomplish anything in life. he took risks and had the courage to stand up. and one great foundation of this country provides the individuals the right to do that, to challenge others and to live a life that is very full. and he lived his life to the fullest and reached many and to the athletic world, he reached the height and to reaching others, he did the same in his personal life as well. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on monday, june 13, 2016, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00

p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. >> madam speaker, sadly insanity is the only word that i can use to describe the foolishness of the obama, clinton and kerry engagement with the islamic republic of iran. in january, the obama administration cut a $1.7 billion chk to the government of iran. on may 18, iran's guardian council voted to send this money

to iran's military. secretary of state kerry was asked whether this money would be used to fund terrorism. he responded. i think that some of it will wind up in the hands of the iranian revolutionary guard corps or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists. mr. babin: this week, we can sadly confirm that has indeed come to pass, the entire $1.7 billion from the u.s. taxpayers will now be used to fund iran's military and terrorism apparatus. this is the same iran that routinely chants death to america, threatens to wipe israel off of the map, captures and humiliates our u.s. sailors and brazenly fires missiles in close proximity to america's naval vessel and responsible for the killing of hundreds of american troops. madam speaker, this is utter

foolishness and these policies must end. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: madam speaker, last month i had the opportunity to join my colleague on the homeland security committee, congressman john radcliffe of the state of texas on a trip to israel. as we know the security threat to israel are enormous and extend well into the cyber domain. israel's response to attacks on her networks has been extraordinary as israel is now the second largest exporter of seib are scurebt and products second by the united states. the development of this industry met in large part by the prime

minister, the cyberspock initiative and brings together innovators and business leaders, their version of the silicon valley. united states and israel collaborate closely on so many issues and i believe that the united states and israel can learn from each other in this emerging field both in teps of cutting-edge technologies and novel policy approaches. i will help to develop these partnerships and i thank the government of israel for a wonderful learning experience and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hill: madam -- mr. westerman: i would like to congratulations to parker

of hot springs, nicholas of pearcey and christian. these star students from the 4th district of arkansas will attend the service academies this fall. benjamin, kimberly and west point. arkansas has a history of academy alumni and this includes general macarthur, supreme ally commander in the pacific and brigadier general william o'dashy leader of the army rangers. their example is one of courage and excellence. with this rich tradition before them and through their own accomplishments there is no doubt these students will do their very best to bring honor to themselves, their families and state.

i wish them good luck. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much, madam speaker. at what point do we stop playing games with women's health? zika is an epidemic and american women are watching as congress refuses to act every day this disease spreads faster and impacts men, women and especially newborn babies. it is unbelievable that the best response to stop the spread of this dangerous infection, all they do is tell american women, don't get pregnant. that is unacceptable. we can do better. have republicans learned anything from the flint water crisis where they focused on the price tag instead of protecting

children? we cannot wait one more minute. we must do something to prevent further spreading of the zika virus. i'm outraged that we don't have a solution to something that could hurt our children. because of its impacts, americans are afraid to travel and go outside and now terrified to grow their families. i urge a vote. this bill incentivizes the development of a vaccine to protect us from this disease. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from seek recognition? to adam speaker, i rise congratulate the superintendent of the national park on her recent appointment to oversee

the rocky national and thank her for her service. under her leadership, the national park has record highs of attendance and attracting 750,000 people. rincon re saw the the mountain visitor center. she spearheaded efforts to connect the park with local young and urban populations ex exposing them to the treasures. in addition to her role as director of one of southern arizona's largest park, she served for four years on the january 8 memorial foundation board. i hiked the park to talk about its value and we continue to work together on efforts to protect and improve this gem. we will be sad to lose her in august and no doubt her leadership of our park contributed to her appointment to oversee the third most visited national park in the

country. i thank her for her service and i wish her well. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i rise today to express my fierce opposition to the illegal alien provision that has been inserted into the legislative branch appropriations bill. ms. sanchez: this partisan language will force the library of congress to use the term even though the library congress decided to remove that derogatory and totally inaccurate term from the library's subject heading system. illegal alien is a form of dehow manizing rhetoric. the term has been used to

justify continued discrimation against vulnerable communities. it is politicizing what is supposed to be a bipartisan budget bill. this unprecedented interference by congress will have huge ram fix. the library of congress sets the standard for subject headings used across america and internationally. illegal alien, alien? it's inaccurate. the library of congress contains our most important records and they should be accurate and reflect reality. thank you. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. benishek: mr. speaker, june

is alzheimer's and brain awareness month. this month is set aside as the time to raise a awareness of what the disease is and the devastating impact has on people throughout our nation and what we can do to help fight this condition. in michigan alone, over 180,000 of our seniors are currently facing alzheimer's disease. alzheimer's is the sixth leading cause of death in the state. these numbers are only expected to go up. as a doctor from northern michigan, i have seen firsthand the struggle that those living with alzheimer's face. here in congress, i have supported numerous efforts to increase federal funding for research as well as plans to offer higher quality of care for alzheimer's patients. we have made great progress in the research and the treatment of alzheimer's disease, it's my hope we will continue to work

together towards ending this plight. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? >> permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. beatty: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of stem education and the critical role, science, technology, engineering and math play in our nation's economic prosperity. as our economy shifts towards stem-oriented careers, we must ensure students have the opportunity to learn and succeed in these fields. that is why i introduced the 21st century stem for girls and underrepresented minorities act, h.r. 2773. i ask my colleagues, mr. speaker, to support this bill. this legislation will help create programs and curriculum

for girls and underrepresented minorities to pursue stem careers. just last week, i was reminded of the importance of stem jegs while delivering the commencement address at metro early college high school, a stem-focused high school in think 3rd congressional district of ohio. i salute the graduates of the metro early college high school who achieved a you 100% acceptance rate to college and commend their parents as well as the dedicated teachers and staff, including the principal. mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to have the names of the 106 graduates of the metro early college high school graduating class inserted into the congressional record. thank you. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition?

mr. carter: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. carlt cart i rise today to recognize a very special garvin.ent of mine, fex he received a humanitarian service medal for his service in rwanda. the renched turned tech sergeant volunteered with the georgia national guard and helped refugees called operation support hope. in these missions, he flew supplies and food to many refugees in rwanda who were staying in tent villages. his service to our nation did not end there. he is also a purple heart recipient because of his courageous service in vietnam and shot three times in the leg.

and launched a surprise attack on his unit. i want to thank tech sergeant garvin for his service and the united states department of defense for recognizing the remarkable service of sergeant garvin in the 155th airlift wing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. duffy of wisconsin for today through tuesday, june 14. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr.

speaker. it's good to be back on the house floor to pick up an issue that concerns most every american that has gone to college. i remember a day three weeks ago at the county fair. the security guard at the gate greeted me, said, congressman, i said, yes, he said, i need your help. what can i do for you? he said, i had to go back to school to get the license and the education for this job. i now run the security program here. he said, i will be over 70 years of age before i'm able to pay off my student loan. he was probably in his early 50's at that time. i said, how can that be? he said, the interest rate is illing me. and indeed not only killing him, but all across this nation the issue of student debt is harming families, holding back

the formation of families, not getting married because you have to pay off the debt, who do you want to -- would you want to marry that person with all that debt? i don't think so. buying houses. getting a car. carrying on your life. student debt is an incredible burden on the american public. not just the students, but in many cases the parents of students. here's what's happened with student debt. it's now over $1.2 trillion. probably today much larger than the debt on credit cards. the growth has been almost exponential. and we're continuing to see this rise. it's not over. continuing the debt is part of america's reality. here's some astonishing facts about student debt. not only is it $1.2 trillion, but it's continuing to increase at $2,226 every second.

so we're going to see this go way beyond $1.2 trillion, probably approaching nearly $1.5 trillion by the end of this decade. the number of borrowers and the average balance of their debt has grown by 70% between 2004 and 2012. that's more than 7% per year. and finally down here, we can see that the average student loan debt for graduate students is now over $35,000 pursuant to. this is an extraordinary burden -- pursuant to. this is an extraordinary burden. now, tell -- per student. this is an extraordinary burden. now, tell me, what family in america hasn't refinanced their home? i think we all have. patty and i have refinanced our home. i suspect most americans, if they haven't yet refinanced, they're watching the interest rates and looking for that moment when they too will refinance their home. so the question for us today is

, why not refinance student loans? just the same as we refinance our homes. well, the loans are owned by the federal government. so this is a question for us in congress to say, yeah, let's do something to give the american economy a boost. let's give something to give those families, those young students that are out of school and those that are still in school an opportunity to refinance their loans and to recalculate the interest on loans that they will be taking out in the months and years ahead. take a look at this. undergraduate loans from the federal government are now 4.29%. if you're in the other programs it may be 5% and if you're in the graduate program, it's 6.84%. the federal government can borrow money somewhere less than 2% or right around 2% for

10 years. if you add another percent for administrative costs, we could refinance all that $1.2 trillion of student loans down 3.23%.3 -- what a break that would give to students and in school and out of school and those that are going to be borrowing money for the next school year. 3.2% versus 4.29%. or if you're a graduate student, 3.23% versus 6.84%. less than half the interest rate. we can do it. we can do this. and when we do it, those students that are now carrying that incredible burden of having to pay these extraordinary interest rates to the federal government that is actually making a $138 billion profit on the backs of students , so i'd go back to that gentleman there at the county

fair who now has a business but also has a student loan that he took out to get the education he needed to start that business, i'd go back to him and say, i'll tell you what, instead of a 6% or a 7% loan, we can refinance your loan down to 3.23%. and what does it mean? what does it mean to the individual student? it means a great deal. so we have introduced h.r. 5274, the student loan refinancing and recalculation act. it will do the following. it would set all student loan interest rates at 3.25%. new ones coming up, existing ones, graduate loans, low-income family loans and the like. if you happen to be a low-income family, and many of these students are, in fact, the great majority of low-income students are in fact taking out loans.

for them, it will be thousands of dollars of interest saved because we also calculate that the interest will not begin to accrue until after graduation. and also we know that the average savings for students will be over $2,000 on their loans and it also eliminates the origination fee. why is the federal government charging an origination fee when a student actually goes to the financial office at the university, the paperwork is done by the university, but yet the federal government, your federal government, is sticking it one more way to the student by charging an origination fee. so the new piece of legislation, h.r. 5274, the student loan refinancing and recalculation act, is an enormous advantage to the american economy, by allowing these students to hang onto a little bit more of their money and to engage in the economy,

get married, get a car, buy a house. had an interesting conversation with the bankers that come -- came into my office a while back. they said, well, the interest rate's not just the only problem. i said, what's the rest of it? he said, these students are carrying these loans on their assets or their liabilities and when we look at their asset liability, we see this enormous debt and we cannot even offer them a loan. said, if you're able to reduce that, the interest rate and therefore the payments that are required, we will be better able to offer them a loan for a car or for a house, so let's do it. federal government ought not be making $138 billion profit on the backs of students. we can borrow money at less than 2% or right around 2% for 10 years, let's refinance all of those $1.2 trillion of loans, down to $3.2 -- 3.2%.

and for the new loans that the students are going to be taking out this coming year, let's give them a break. instead of 4%, 5% or 6%, let's do 3.%. just 1 -- 3.2%. just 1% more than the federal government can borrow money. keep in mind, h.r. 5274, the student loan refinancing and recalculation act. my colleagues, let's do it. let's do it for the students. both new and existing students and families that have taken out loans so that their children can get ahead. so that those students that have taken out that loan can have the burden reduced, refinance your house, refinance your student loan. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. an issue we've been talking about on the republican side for quite a bit, and i think some of my democratic friends realized how serious an issue this is. because they care about our military members. the president of the united before he was ever elected that he was going guantanamo bay

facility that housed the worst of the worst terrorists, wanting to kill americans and destroy our way of life. well, he found out right after he took office, you just can't do that because it is going to put american lives at risk. there's a reason they're being held there. and it violates no rules of law when it comes to war. because war is a little different. but since civilized society came along in the history of mankind, things improved for prisoners of war. because before there was civilized society, when one group warred against another, they would either kill them,

make them slaves, it was pretty gruesome what occurred. but in civilized history, when one group says, we are at war with this other group, then the other group either responds by defending themselves or they are overtaken by the evil doers. in this case, radical islamists. and since the history of more civilized warfare, if we can call it such, as war is truly nations played by rules that said, if you capture someone who is part of the group at war with you, then you hold them as prisoners and --

in a humane fashion until such time as the group of witch they are apart -- of which they are apart agrees that they're no longer at war. nd if the war drags on 15, 20, 30, 50 years, the not the fault of the country that captures people at war with them, because that country did not start the war. in this case, the radical islamists have had this small since its am beginning that felt like the way to be truly religiously islamic is to kill anybody that stands in your way of having an international caliphate and forcing everyone in the world to bow before allah and islam. n the name of islam.

not our fault if they will not say, we are no longer at war with you, because once that release those ou prisoners who were part of the group that was at war with you, and if some of them can be proven to be guilty of actual war crimes against humanity, then you take them to trial and you try to convict them and if you do, as we saw after world war ii, they're convicted and sentenced to death, that occurs, if they're sentenced to prison, that's on top of the years that we waited while their group continued to be at war with us. that is under the civilized rules of warfare. guantanamo bay, i can say having

en there, more than once and also towered many state and federal prisons, has provided the most humane treatment i have ever seen of prisoners -- a group of prisoners get. for example, in a texas prison, feces on aw urine or guard, you will suffer consequences for that decision. i found out on one of my trips to guantanamo bay prison, when, as often happens, an inmate figures out a way to throw urine or fees yes, sir on one of our -- feces on one of our member military guards, because we don't want to be perceived as having a mean-spirited prisons,

we take away some movie-watching hours to teach them a lesson. and there have been instances when they didn't like the movies, perhaps they hadn't been screened properly, maybe a woman exposed a bare arm, there was uproar problems, but if somebody committed a really egregious crime of assaulting one of our guards, then they might actually lose some of their time outside for a day or two. and it bothered me greatly to find out that the guards were not allowed to even say anything when someone threw urine or

feces on them when they were an inmate at guantanamo bay, because one such united states military member -- i think they said he was a minority member of our united states military had feces thrown on him and he said a name, and he received an article 15 nonjudicial punishment and he was punished for simply saying something back after he had feces thrown on him. well, that ought to be the least of the problems. and i couldn't believe one of our military members who had been assaulted in such a manner was the one punished for saying something back to the inmate who threw feces on him. but the president is determined to follow through with this same

kind of policy idea that he's had since the beginning when he had his apology tour going throughout the middle east apologizing in egypt, apologizing around the world for america, who has been the only country that i can find in history that has shed so much precious american blood, so much blood of our americans for other people's freedom. we don't know anybody an apology, not for that. and there is this mentality among some liberals, like our president, that the world will be so much safer and so much better place to live if america were brought down and we're not a superpower and you let other countries be superpowers, like,

for example, iran. let's give iran $150 billion access to that. and let's let them become a superpower and we'll negotiate a deal that hopefully will prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon while president obama is in office and then who cares what happens after that, right? but the deal that was negotiated pretty well assures that iran will have nuclear weapons. it's jus a matter of when. and now that we know that iran has repeatedly broken their agreement and we know that this dministration, as we found out that this administration actually manipulated video to try to cover up just how bad the deal was that this state department was negotiating. i didn't really need to see the

story to know this kind of stuff was going on. when i saw that wendy sherman was maybe chief negotiator working with secretary of state, who was also part of the glorious deal that the clinton administration, along with madeline albright negotiated with north korea, basically and this is my translation of the deal, ok, we're going to make sure that you have nuclear power and we'll make sure you got nuclear fuel. you've got everything you need weapon so longar as you'll sign an agreement saying that you're not going to use it to create a nuclear weapon. and you can't help but think of all the snickering that went on by orth korea, especially jong il.

wow. all they want is my signature. sure, where do i sign? and reminded me of the story jeff foxworthy told about, before he made money as a comedian, he was down on his luck, a guy shows up at his door, i'm here to repossess your car. i can't make money and get to my car. so please don't take my car. i'm sorry, mr. foxworthy and i'm supposed to either leave with your car or with cash payment or with a check. and foxworthy basically said. you'll take a check? i didn't know you'll take a check. how much do you want me to write it out for? and he signs and gives the check

and keeps his car. you mean you'll give us everything we need in north korea to have nuclear weapons and all we have to do is sign and you're good with that? wow. let us sign. they signed. we make sure they have what they need for nuclear weapons in the name of giving them nuclear power and sure enough, very speckedly by some of us because it was such a stupid thing to do, the clinton administration, wendy sherman right there in the negotiations, we gave them the ability to create nuclear weapons, which they've done. same way with iran. their leaders must have been laughing behind our backs because we know what they were saying publicly while they were still continuing to say death to america. still calling us the great satan. still saying we aren't going to

abide by any agreement, that the united states would never get them to do what we wanted them to do. while we are telling the public we aren't going to go along with any deal we sign, you are still willing to accept our signature on a deal? allah allows us to sign something that is a lie that furthers his kingdom, in their way of thinking. if we had strong enough leadership in the united states senate, what would happen would be, there would be a call for a vote on the iran treaty, which it is. it modifies other treaty provisions and therefore, you can't do that unless it is a treaty. so it's a treaty. the constitution says it requires 2/3 of the senate to vote tore the treaty in order for it to be ratified. pork ate took up this

bill that turned the constitution upside down and says we are going to say it takes 2/3 to vote against a deal, otherwise it goes forward. the senate and bob corker is a really nice guy, but my word, the damage that was done to the middle east and to the world by the senate taking an approach to the iran treaty as if it wasn't really a treaty. there's still time. take the vote in the senate. and i know that 60 votes are required for cloture, but when harry reid felt like getting liberal judges into federal courts was more important than the cloture rule, he had 51 democrats vote to set aside the cloture rule and put in the liberal judges they wanted over

the republican objection. this iran treaty is going to eventually bring so much death and destruction to not only the middle east, but as netanyahu has warned us, they're not preparing those intercontinental missiles, they're for us. so what do we see in the news now other than the fact that article says this iran spends $1.7 billion in u.s. taxpayer funds to boost its military. and it says in this june 9 article from "free beacon," the state department is staying silent after iranian officials disclose that the islamic republic spent a recent payment by the united states of $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds to expand and buildup its military,

according to comments provided to the "washington free beacon." the administration paid $1.7 billion from a u.s.-taxpayer funded account to settle legal dispute with the republic. never mind that our american citizens that were taken hostage have never been allowed to collect properly on the damages done by this regime in iran. es, it was khomeini. lums, same ame hood type thinking, were the ones this administration provided $1.7 billion instead of taking care of the american citizens that this radical islamist regime in iran -- after they

attacked our embassy, took our hostages and held them over a year and we pay them? it's consistent and i understand with the apology mentality that leaders in this country have. maybe the world would be so much better if we are not a superpower, we cut our military to pre--world war ii levels and then we give iran, that hates us, very clearly they have said they are going to destroy our way of life and our freedoms, we give them $1.7 billion to buildup their military, while we are breaking down ours. and i keep going back to the omment by an african named togo, when i was over there with the mercy ship.

provided incredible health care to the people in west africa and at the end of my week there, he and other africans -- these were not african-americans, these were africans, but they also happened to be fellow christians. and after a lovely meeting with them, he spoke and he said, look , basically, he said, we were so excited when you elected your first black president, i believe he said, but since then we have seen america get weaker and weaker. and the reason we all wanted to meet with you is because we are christians and we know where we are going when we hope, but our only hope in this life is if america is strong. because as america gets weaker,

we suffer more. and we have seen that around the world. i have been to nigeria and went with mothers whose children were kidnapped by radical islamists. they know that as america has not responded to the radical islam in nigeria and helped them s we could, they have suffered mightily. and yet this administration, from what's come out of nigeria has said, you know, look, we'll help you a little more. we will be able to help you with boko haram, but you got to stay paying for abortions and you have to start having same-sex religions. that's what we want you to do. they are suffering there. they are suffering in all parts of africa, many parts of africa, because this administration has

not been the force for good, it's been a force for weakness. . and now this story, june 8, at least 10 guantanamo detainees implemented in attacks against america, at least 12 detainees -- this is the obama administration themselves. this isn't louie gohmert. this is the obama administration believes at least 12 detainees released from the base at guantanamo bay, cuba, have launched attacks against the united states or allied forces in afghanistan killing about half a dozen americans, according to current and former u.s. officials. and it goes on to explain how these former guantanamo bay detainees have been killing americans in afghanistan. this is no surprise to some of

us who have been saying when these people were involved in plotting and killing americans before they were detained and they've even made statements in detention they can't wait to get out so they can kill more americans. at some point even if they say, ok, i'll sign where they want me to, just let me go, who are surprised when they go back on their word like north korea, go back on their word like the islamic leaders in iran, which was distinguished by so many iranians who want to be rid of the radicalo back to killing americans? that's why so many of us have been saying, a majority in this house, we are not going to let you close guantanamo. we have made it against the law for him to release people

unless certain things were done, and he violated that, the president did, when he made the deal for what's apparently a united states army deserter, certainly appears, and he let five of the worst murderers go without following the law that was set out for the president. and now it's been substantiated. we know people that this -- that have been released from guantanamo have been killing americans, so one thing we ow, also, is when a nation's enemies see that that nation's strongest ally is pulling away from that enemy, it is provocative. they act against that nation. so when that nation is israel and the appearance to the world

is that the united states is pulling back from our close alliance and friendship with israel, is it any wonder that israel's biggest, most hateful enemies would be moving against israel? terrorists have once again been inspired to go on killing sprees in israel despite the israelis doing everything they .an to stop the carnage as prime minister netanyahu has said -- i believe he even said it in this chamber as he stood here facing moses, our greatest known lawgiver of all-time, standing, by the way -- and i mentioned this to prime minister netanyahu as he came down the aisle in may of 2011,

don't forget while you're standing speaking to us, our national motto will be right above your head. and he started to look up and then he didn't even have to look up because he obviously knew what was up there and he looked me in the eye and said, i had already thought about that. so as he stood here, in god we trust above his head, looking at the greatest lawgiver in the history of mankind, moses -- most of us think he had 10 good commandments. i think our supreme court would say, maybe five or six, but he warned us what was happening in the realm of radical islam and what would be happening to israel and what would be happening to what they call the great satan, america, and people in this administration did not listen. americans have spoken out loudly during the primary

season about this idea of refugees which cannot be properly vetted because we don't know really who they are, where they're coming from, and as f.b.i. director comey testified in front of our judiciary committee, you know, we'll vet them but we have nothing to vet with. at least in iraq we had iraq's records on who had criminal convictions, who had arrests. we have no records from syria and some of these other places. we don't know who they are. we don't know how criminal they are. we don't know how radical islamist they are. and so many have been warning and american people have been warning through the primary season, and this article substantiates from june 10, refugees angry over skimpy ramadan meals, set shelter on fire, police say. this is from fox news. a pair of north african

refugees set a fire on tuesday because they were angry that he special ramadan meals weren't up to snuff. investigators told the bbc said the men, who were not fasting, had complained their lunch portions were too small since they weren't observing the fast, they wanted -- portions were too small. since they weren't observing the fast, they wanted more feed. so they burned it down costing $11 million in damages. and the 26-year-old north african told reporters, we had to do it. had to burn it down because so things could change. so the question remains, as more and more refugees are brought into this country against the will of the majority of the american people , how many facilities are going to be burned in america? how many more americans are

going to be killed on our own soil because the state department is not properly and the homeland security department is not properly vetting? our friend and in my mind hero phil haney who worked for the department of homeland security had thousands of entries that janet napolitano said, you know, we tried to connect the dots. they deleted thousands of those dots. why? because this administration apparently doesn't want the public to know or the next administration to find out that many of the people they consult with, consort with have ties to terrorists. they deleted so many thousands of the dots in our system. we're at risk and the f.b.i.

director, i respect him, james comey, he said tuesday that the islamic state group is currently the main threat facing the united states both in its efforts to recruit fighters to join its members overseas and have others carry out violence in america. he said the islamic state group poses a third potential threat, a terrorist diaspora that he aid will eventually flow out of syria, end up in iraq and they have easy access to the united states. there are three prongs to the islamic state, well, the isil threat. comey said the recruitment to travel, the recruitment to violence in place and then what you saw a few -- preview of in brussels and in paris, hardened fighters coming out looking to kill people. he said officials are laser focused. we know some officials like him are focused on that, but we

also know there are others in the administration that are meeting with people that the justice department under president bush made very clear n their pleadings were co-conspirators in support for terrorism. that included the council on american islamic relations, care, and then we have -- we hear about our friends at the council of the american islamic relations when we see the article that just this week, care is joking around about medicaiding americans against islam phobia -- islamaphobia. so that article from virginia hale, 9, june, from breitbart. talks about the jokes by the

muslim brotherhood linked council on american islamic relations and advises anyone who harbors intolerance towards muslims pose a danger to the u.s. to take anti-islamaphobia thinking for their bigotry. well, is it really bigotry when you're not prestigious against muslims? you have many muslim friends but you know there is a part of islamists, there's a part of muslims who are radical islamists who want to kill you, destroy your country, destroy christianity, destroy jews, kill all of them, is it really bigotry to say we would really like to stop them before they destroy america, kill all americans, kill all christians in the world, kill all jews in the world, we would really like to stop that? is that really bigotry?

because i would submit, mr. if ker, that what that is you're an american is love of country, and we have had americans -- and i hope and pray still -- well, i know we have americans who still have what jesus, who laid down his life for us, said was the greatest love anyone could ever have, that someone would lay down their lives for others. he knew what that was. he did it. and we've had so many americans do that, but because of the lunacy that's occurring now in the administration, in the state department, in homeland security, in our military, americans are being killed and . e going to be killed

and if that's not enough, this article from are town hall, is syrians une 3, push sweden to a brink of collapse? it's interesting. osama bin laden had an interesting statement at one time about how very cheaply they were able to kill 3,000 americans on 9/11 but that the best part, even beyond killing 3,000 americans was that they cost us billions and maybe trillions of dollars with a very, very small investment to killing americans on 9/11 and that if they will keep having projects like that, they can break us financially. and it appears that with the decisions in this administration they're on their way to doing that. and if that's not enough, this administration had the v.a.

the department of veterans affairs, they say, has now proposed covering transition-related surgeries for transgendered veterans in the near future under a proposed rule change. well, i know that the people making this decision don't want more veterans killing hemselves, but as dr. paul mchugh from the former head of psychiatry at johns hopkins, now retired but still working with them but one transgendered gentleman that had the sex change in his 40's had told me dr. mchugh knows more about transgendered than anybody. dr. mchugh has not made that claim. he's a very humble gentleman but he's a brilliant man, and e cites in his article printed

in "the wall street journal" bout a 2011 study at the institute in sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered evidence that should give advocates pause, talking about advocates for transgendered agenda that's even being pushed here in congress and he says the long-term study up to 30 years followed 324 people who had sex reassignment surgery. this study revealed beginning about 10 years after the surgery the traps jendered began to experience in-- transgendered began experiencing mental difficulties. their suicide mortality rows almost 20--- rose almost 20-fold. the disturbing result is no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging

transgendered after surgery. . so for those in the v.a. who think sex change operations are a good idea, mr. speaker, i hope they will look at the number of veterans that are killing themselves, higher rates than any time in previous eras of american history. and they will look at how many veterans are dying without the treatment they need and the veterans that are in lines, long lines to get the treatment they need to stay alive and who are dying waiting for the treatment they need. o you really want to have 20 times more veterans killing themselves? is that where you warrant

veterans' money being -- want veterans' money being spent, so we can have 20 times the suicide rate that we currently have? forbid it almighty god, as patrick henry once said. and now the administration wants to take away of parents' choices. want to take our choices away that the first amendment assures that we have the right to freedom of religion. there is no right to freedom from religion, but there is a right of freedom of religion and those rights are being taken away as they were from the little sisters of the poor. do we want to allow these rights to continue to be taken at the cost of american lives as we have seen resulting from people released at guantanamo bay,

resulting from the ridiculous rules that are given to our ilitary members? they can be assured no civilian will get hit. the rules of engagement have gotten ridiculous under this administration. so many rules are costing american lives. it's time to bring it all home d to understand the words of ebenezer in africa, when america gets weaker, people around the world suffer. they understand that, freedom-loving people understand around the world when america gets weaker, they suffer. america has been a gift to the world. mr. speaker, you know it. i know it.

and i hope and pray for in the administration will realize it before it's too late. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: would the gentleman entertain a motion to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon, monday next, for morning hour debate.

>> they won $3,000 on their documentary. and we made a stop in washington, d.c., both received honorable mention for their videos and awarded $250. theirand ali won $750 for

videos on money and politics and poverty and homelessness. thanks to our partners, comcast cable. and you can view all the winning ocumentaries at studentcam .organize. senator: from washington, this is about 30 minutes. cheers and applause] senator: thank you.

thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. it is so good to be here. and thank you caroline, for inviting me to speak today. thank you, lilly. it is just terrific to be here. i look out in this room and see so many people in the audience today. the american constitution society has a vital purpose and that is to stand up for the rule of law and stand up for the constitution and to stand up against those who would undermine either one of them. that's what we do. [cheers and applause] senator: and each every person in this room has committed themselves to that fight. and thank you for that commitment because i got to say, we're going to need you. four simple words are engraved

above the doors to the united states supreme court, equal justice under law. that's supposed to be the basic promise of our legal system that our laws are just and that everyone, everyone, will be held equally accountable if they break those laws. now, look, we haven't always fulfilled those promises but it is the absolute standard to which we hold ourselves even when we fall short. and a vital part of that struggle is the fight for a truly professional, independent and impartial judiciary. absolutely. cheers and applause] senator: a place governed not by money, politics or power or by the four simple words, equal justice under law. now three years ago, i came here

to deliver a warning about how that promise is under threat. and i talk pretty bluntly about how we are losing the fight over whether our courts will remain a neutral forum, faithfully interpreting law and dispensing fair and impartial justice or whether the rich and powerful interests will completely kaptur the judicial branch. i talked about year after year for more than 30 years now, powerful interests have worked to rewrite the law and tilt the courts to favor billionaires and giant corporations. alk about cases that prevent for accountability and harder for individuals to get into court, cases that gutted long standing protections for consumers to keep them from being cheated and cases like citizens united, which unleashed n avalanche of billionaire

superpac and a mad dash to tilt the rest of government in favor of the wealthy. and today, i am here to update that warning. because what we have seen over the past three years accelerating over the past three months and even the last three weeks is alarming. powerful interests are now launching a full scale assault on the integrity of the federal judiciary and it's judges. now this assault has two major elements. first, tearing down our centuries' old process for apointing judges and secondly, viciously attacking judicial nominees, potential nominees and even sitting federal judges at the first sign that they might put the rule of law above devotion to the rich and

powerful. [applause] >> earlier this week, i released a comprehensive report on the republican campaign of obstruction against president obama's nominees. it details how senate republicans have delayed or blocked those on key nominations throughout the entire obama presidency. the purpose of this obstruction is to try to hold open federal positions for as long as possible. the purpose is also to hamstring the president's ability to protect consumers and workers to hold large corporations accountable, to promote equality. in other words, to undermine the fundamental principle of equal justice under law. the centerpiece of that strategy has been a blockade of federal judicial appointments and it is much bigger than the united

states supreme court. from the day president obama was sworn in, senate republicans have used every procedural tool at their disposal to try to slow down his nominees. they spent months abusing the filibuster in a naked effort to preserve a right-wing majority on the d.c. circuit. and after capturing the senate in 2015, they slowed judicial confirmations down to a trickle. and advance the aagendaa of the wealthy and the powerful. it is outrageous and it is up to us to fight back.

[applause] senator: senate republicans do your job. give district court nominees their vote. [cheers and applause] senator: do your job, give circuit court nominees their vote. and do your job, give merrick . rland his vote cheers and applause] senator: there is a second line of attack, intimidation. justice demands a judiciary that is made up of independent lawyers who can provide insight

and expertise from every corner of the profession, but senate republicans and their big business allies don't like nominees whose resonates reflect insufficient devotion to the interests of the rich and the powerful. so they smear them. defense lawyers, public interest lawyers, plaintiffs' lawyers. nominees with these professional experiences are just regularly slandered. and their integrity is questioned and scores of republicans line up to oppose them. senator jeff sessions of alabama has attacked the integrity of several of president obama's nominees. for what? for having some association with the american civil liberties union, apparently being connected to an organization whose principal purpose is to defend rights guaranteed by the constitution is an automatic

disqualification. sessions vowed that the nominations process would become and i got this quote here, a more contentious matter if we keep seeing the aclu chromosome as part of this process. and he meant it. during her confirmation hearing to be a district court judge this year, senator sessions just a n insulted paula ennis former public defender and civil rights lawyer who worked on cases amongst others, on police abuse. he asked the question whether or not she could assure the police officers that might be before your court that they'll get a fair day in court and that your history would not impact your decision making. i just want you to guess how many times senator sessions has questioned a fancy corporate defense lawyer, asking if they

would assure victims of fraud or people poisonned by toxic wastes or people injured by shoddy products or employees fired illegally because they tried to join a union if they would get a fair day in court. the judge was rated you deman mousely well qualified by the american par association, yet she was barely confirmed with nearly three dozen republican senators voting against her. this approach is could rose i have to the legal to the legal profession and to our courts and to the rule of law. and it is the responsibility of every lawyer, no matter who their clients are to stand up and fight back. cheers and applause]

senator: the attacks around the current supreme court vacancy have been even uglier. at one point, senator john cornyn, number two republican in the senate from the state of texas that any nominee, any nominee put forward by president bama, would be beaten like a pinata and his right-wing billionaire and big business allies have made good on those threats. when rumors circulated that jane kelly, a highly respected judge, the judicial crisis network, which is this right-wing group that is financed by dark money from the koch brothers, there are ads attacking her service to the nation as a federal public defender. as you know, the president

eventually nominated merrick revered, judge so days before he was announced, senator hatch called him a fineman that the president could easily name to fill the vacancy. and then what happened? scores of republican senators refused to even meet with him. the judicial crisis network started again, spending millions of dollars on television ads to demean this man. the nfib, the right-wing lobbying group that claims to speak for small businesses but is actually swimming in cash from conservative billionaires, announced it would oppose garland's nomination, a judge ruled in their favor 77% of the time. now that's a punch line a roomful of lawyers will

appreciate because every lawyer in this room knows that federal law requires judges to defer to most agency actions, but apparently, it doesn't matter anymore whether or not judge garland follows the law. what matters is that he doesn't bend the law to suit giant corporations. judge garland is not a politician. he is a judge with an unimpeachable record of putting the law first. and for that sin, he faces a nonstop national campaign of slime. he faces historic disrespect from the republicans who control the senate. it is diss pickable, it must end it. e must end [applause]

senator: this is to tilt the game and it's working. 86% of president obama's judicial nominees have either worked as a corporate attorney, a prosecutor or both. while less than 4% have worked as public lawyers and public interest organizations. professional diversity is missing from the federal bench and justice suffers for it. but even disqualifying judges based on their professional background isn't enough for donald trump. [laughter] senator: trump tells everyone who will listen that he is a great businessman. let's be honest he is a guy who inherited a fortune and kept rolling it along by cheating people. [cheers and applause] senator: and you know, when

that's your business model, sooner or later, you are going to run into legal trouble and donald trump has run into a lot of legal trouble. yes, trump university. which is former employees referred to as one big fraudulent scheme. many of the university's victims ended up in debt, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. trump's employee playbook said, look for people with financial problems because they make good targets. he even encouraged them to go after elderly people who are trying to create a little financial security because trump figured they were vulnerable. i taught law for more than 30 years and ask any lawyer in america and they till tell you t sounds a lot like fraud.

[laughter] senator: that is exactly what donald trump is being sued for, is being sued and for targeting people, lying to them and taking their money and leaving them in debt. some of these people are fighting back because in america, we have the rule of law. and that means no matter how rich your no matter how famous your if you break the law, you can be held accountable, even if your name is donald trump. [applause] senator: but trump doesn't think those rules apply to him. at a political rally two weeks ago and almost daily, the resumptive nominee for president of the united states has attacked the federal judge

presiding over his case. he said we are in front of a hostile judge, frankly he should recuse himself. he has given us ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative. trump is criticizing judge curiel for following the law instead of bending it to suit fragile defendant. cheers and applause] senator: now trump also whined that he is being treated unfairly because the judge happens to be, we believe, mexican. and when he got called out, he doubled down by saying, i'm

building a wall. it's an inherent conflict of interest. [laughter] senator: he has personally, personally directed his army of campaign surrogates to step up their own public attacks on judge curiel. he has even condemned federal judges who are muslim on the theory that his own bigotry compromises the judge's knew tralt. [laughter] senator: you just can't make this stuff up. [cheers and applause] senator: all federal judges, judge curiel is bound by the code of judicial ethics not to respond to these attacks. trump is picking on someone who is bound not to defend himself, exactly what you would expect from a thick-skinned raceist

bully. cheers and applause] senator: the judge can't respond, but we can. we can tell his story. ne zalo curiel was born in indiana to mexican immigrants who worked hard. he went to indiana university for undergrad and went there for law school. for 13 years, he worked as a federal prosecutor in southern california, fighting the mexican drug cartels as a leader of that region's narcotics enforcement division. he col baited with top mexican officials to disrupt the culture of corruption between the mexican government and the most powerful and deadly cocaine smugglers in north america. and the effort was pretty impressive. on both sides of the border,

street gangs and assassins were arrested and prosecuted. but that success came at great costs. witnesses were killed. mexican officials were murdered. dge curiel was the target of an assassination plot and spent the better part of the year link in hiding under the protection of u.s. marshals. the judge was appointed to the california state court by a republican governor, who called him an american hero. he was nominated to the federal bench by a democratic president and confirmed by a voice vote in the senate. just what kind of a man judge curiel he is. what kind of a man is donald trump? donald trump says the judge should be ashamed of himself. no, donald, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[cheers and applause] senator: ashamed for using the mega phone of a presidential campaign to attack a judge's character and integrity simply because you think you have some god-given right to steal peoples' money and get away with it. you shame yourself, and you shame this great country. cheers and applause] senator: donald trump says, they'll looge at what judge curiel because what he is doing, is a total disgrace. no, donald, what you are doing is a total disgrace. a judge spoke spent defending america from the terror of murderers and drug traffickers simply because long ago his

family came to america from somewhere else, you, donald trump, are a total disgrace. [cheers and applause] enator: judge curiel is one of countless american patriots who has spent decades quietly serving his country. sometimes at great risk to his own life. nald trump is a loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud who has never risked anything for anyone and who serves no one but himself. [cheers and applause] senator: and that is just one of the many reasons he will never be president of the united states. cheers and applause] senator: but here's the thing,

in spite of these shameful attacks, nobody doubts that judge curiel will continue to preside over trump's case as a fair and neutral judge, because judge curiel is a lawyer with integrity and that's what lawyers with integrity do. judge curiel has survived far worse than donald trump. several assassination attempts. he will have no trouble surviving donald trump's nasty temper tan trucks. when first asked, though, about whether he would condemn comments about judge curiel, senator mitch mcconnell said, gee, you know -- [laughter] senator: donald trump is certainly a different kind of

he, he.e, he, [laughter] senator: after days of pressure, mcconnell finally said, attacking the judge is stupid and that the trump should quote, get on script. what script is that exactly? and where do you suppose that donald trump got the idea that he could personally attack judges regardless of the law whenever they don't bend to the whims of billionaires and big businesses. trump isn't just a different kind of candidate, he is a mitch mcconnell kind of candidate. yes. [cheers and applause] senator: he is exactly the kind of candidate you would expect from a republican party whose script for several years has been to execute a full-scale

assault on the integrity of our courts. blockading judicial appointments so donald trump can fill them. smearing and intimidating nominees who do not pledge allegiance to the financial interests of the rich and powerful. that's the kind. house mp is also speaker's candidate. ul ryan's defended trump's campaign. great, where is paul ryan's condemnation of the blockade, the intimidation and the smears and slime against qualified of judicial nominees and judge garland? where is he? commaupchaup -- [cheers and applause] senator: paul ryan and mitch mcconnell want donald trump to appoint the next generation of judges.

they want those judges to tilt the law in favor of big businesses and billionaires like trump. they just want donald trump to quit being so vulgar and obvious about it. [laughter] [cheers and applause] enator: donald trump shows racism as his weapon, but his aim is exactly the same as the rest of the republicans. pound the courts into submission for the powerful. senator mcconnell recently said, quote, he's pretty calm about donald trump because what protects this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the constitution, the institution. mitch mcconnell is 100% wrong. our democracy does not sustain

itself. our constitution does not sustain itself. the rule of law does not sustain itself. there have always been those with money and power who think that the rules shouldn't apply to them. those who would pervert our system of government to serve their own ends. they have tried it before and they are trying it now. and all that is required for the rule of law and our independent judiciary to collapse is for good people to stand by and do nothing. now is not the time to stand by. now is the time to stand up. now is the time to say no, not here, not in these united states of america. [cheers and applause] enator: now. we are not a nation that

disqualifies lawyers and judges from public service because of race or religion or gender or because they haven't spent their entire careers representing the rich and the powerful. we are the nation of john adams, a lawyer who defended the british soldiers after the boston massacre and then went on to serve as president of the united states. we are the nation of abraham lincoln, a lawyer who defended accused killers and then went on to serve as president of the united states. we are the nation of thurgood marshall, a lawyer who fought for racial equality and then went on to serve in the supreme court of these united states. we are the nation of ruth bader ginsburg, a lawyer who fought r gender equality and is now

serving in the supreme court of the united states. that is who we are and we will ot allow a small insecure, or -skinned, wanna-tyrant the senate to destroy the rule of law in the united states of america. [cheers and applause] senator: we will not. we will not. [cheers and applause] senator: you bet. you bet. [cheers and applause] senator: we are ready for this fight, because it is time to

fight again. as it has been time to fight in every generation for those four simple words that define the promise of our legal system. equal justice under law. that's what we're here for. thank you. cheers and applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by ational captioning institute] >> that was from yesterday when

senator warren announced she is supporting hillary clinton and the two met this morning in the nation's capital and hillary clinton gave her first speech since becoming the democratic party's presumptive nominee and spoke at a planned parenthood event and took on republican presidential nominee donald trump. her comments are about a half hour. ♪ this is my fight song, is is my life song ♪ >> welcome to this historic planning convention. we are now in session. [cheers and applause] >> i don't know how in the world we planned for all of us to be together this week when the first woman in history secured

her party's nomination for president of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> this is a week of celebration, hundred years in the making as planned parenthood launches its second century. the right of women to control their destiny and the right to vote have shaped the opportunity for millions of women and families. and we recognize the struggles of all those who came before us to make this day possible. so when migrate-grandmother was a girl, women couldn't vote under texas law and two generations later, her granddaughter, ann richards, was elected governor of the state of texas. [cheers and applause] >> i think like so many of you, i so wish my mom were alive today for this incredible moment in history. for 100 years planned parenthood

has allowed people to live out their dreams and largely because the men can access birth control and legal abortion. we are half of the college students, half of the law and medical students. there are three awesome women on the supreme court of the united states. there are plenty of women in the united states senate and when the planned parenthood action fund and all of us do our work right, over the next five months, we will be proudly be part of electing the first woman president of the united states of america. [cheers and applause] >> i know there are a lot of this in this room and we didn't start out supporting the same candidate, so i think senator sanders for bringing activists into this election. [cheers and applause]

>> but in the end, we are all fighting for the same thing, which brings me to why this election matters. and this isn't about electing any woman to the white house, this is about electing this woman, hillary clinton. [cheers and applause] >> i loved yesterday as president obama put out his video and stated, there has never been anyone as qualified to hold this office running for president of the united states of america. [cheers and applause] >> i want to say one other thing, a lot has been said in this election about trust and planned parenthood, we know something about trust because every single year, millions of patients trust planned parent hood with their health care and their future. a mother in houston, texas, who found a lump in her breast and trusted us. a transgender teen in north

carolina who trust us to provide nonjudgmental high quality health care. [cheers and applause] >> and a young woman far away from home who trusted planned parenthood to get her on birth control. no shame. so the important thing, trust is earned, earned by actions, not by words and that is why the planned parenthood action fund has trust in hillary clinton. trust has been built over a lifetime. remember back when millions of children in america were going without health care coverage, who did the nation trust to establish the first nation's coverage? hillary clinton. that's right. >> or in beijing, who did we trust to declare to the world

that women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights once and for all. hillary. [cheers and applause] >> remember back when the f.d.a. refused to put emergency contraception over the counter and we needed a champion in the united states senate to get it done. who did we trust? hillary. >> and in the white house, who do we trust to lead the charge to repeal the hyde amendment and fix the helms amendment ?ncluding at planned parenthood hillary clinton honestly, who do we trust to simply trust women? that's hillary. so we are enormously honored that hillary is with us today since this is her very first speech since clinching the nomination. [cheers and applause]

>> and as you know, we have talked a lot about it this week, we need a president who will fight for immigration rights, civil rights, voting rights, to keep communities safe from gun violence and toxic water, we need a president who has fought for women and families every single day and will take that fight for all of us to the white house. you know who she is, she's our friend, fighter and leader and going to be the next president of the united states, hillary clinton! [cheers and applause] ♪ this is my fight song this is my life song this is my fight song is is my life song

♪ secretary clinton: thank you. hello. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: thank you. thank you so much. [crowd chanting hillary] secretary clinton: thank you all . i have to say pink never looked so good. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: i want to thank my friend and your courageous leader. cecille is the definition of grace under pressure. she has proven that time and

time again in the course of her career and particularly over the course of the last few years. she really is like another great american, her mother, ann mine s, was a friend of and i just wish she was here to see this election because she would have donald trump tweeting double time. . for the first time a woman will be presidential nominee for president of the united states. and yesterday i had the great honor of being endorsed by president obama and vice president biden. [cheers and applause] secretary clinton: and by senator elizabeth warren.