views, even -- and often, sometimes at least, not in a majority, but many people do views that are inimical to the public safety of the united states. i did not want to have a resolution that suggested that that could not be a factor in the vetting process views that someone is admitted. but i have no belief and do not support the idea that -- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> back to -- mr. sessions: religious groups should be -- >> now back to the live, -- house, live on c-span. kindly ake the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 79 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to clarify the definition of general solicitation under federal securities law. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier

today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 115-2 offered by the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on amendments in the following order. amendment number 1 of ms. velazquez of new york and amendment number 2 by mr. clay of missouri. 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 1 printed in part b of house report 115-2 by the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, 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 1 printed in part b of house report 115-2 offered by ms. velazquez of new york. 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 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 167, the nays are 249. he amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 by the gentleman from missouri on which further proceedings were postponed and on whiches the not -- the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 115-2 offer by mr. clay of missouri. the chair: a record vote has been requested. for support -- 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 eas are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 163. the nays are 253. the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments, under the rule the committee now rises.

the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 79 and pursuant to house resolution 33 i report the bill back to the house. 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 h.r. 79 and pursuant to house resolution 33 reports the bill back to the house. under the rule the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. the ayes -- those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to clarify the definition of general solicitation under federal securities law. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. >> mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. sports utility vehicle, the yeas and nays are ordered. -- a sufficient number having arisen, 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 344. the nays are 73. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. will all members please remove your conversations from the house floor? will members please remove your conversations from the house floor?

will all members please remove their conversations from the house floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 40, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 78, to improve the consideration by the joseph cecconi of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 238, to re-authorize the commodity futures trading commission, to better protect futures customers, to provide end users with market certainty, to make basic reforms to and ensure transparency and accountability at the commission, to help

farmers, ranchers and end users manage risk, to help keep consumer costs low and for other purposes and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, the chair will postponefurther proceedings on the additional motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6, rule 20. any recorded votes on the postponed question will be taken later.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, the house is not n order. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. will members please take their conversations off of the house floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 39, the tested ability to leverage exceptional national talent or talent act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 39, a bill to

amend title 5, united states ode to codify the presidential innovations fellows program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. hurd and the gentleman from desaulnier will e recognized for 20 minutes. mr. hurd: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to resize and extend their marks and inclued extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. he house will be in order. the gentleman will resume. mr. hurd: my pleasure to

recognize the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the leader is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his work. mr. speaker, the government is many things. it is large, it is complicated and ineffective. i don't think anyone would call it modern. while the world is rushing with things like voice-based interfaces, autonomous vehicles, online retail, our data annual particular, our government is years behind. e don't have to accept that. the speaker pro tempore: will members please remove their conversations from the house floor. the microphones aren't working. will members please remove your

conversations from the house floor. and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i thank you, mr. speaker. we do not have to accept it. one of the purposes of the innovation initiative our effort in the house to bring government to the modern age, but right now it could still take hours for the citizens to get i.r.s. on the phone to ask the most basic questions. students deal with clunk ki interface and the v.a. still uses a scheduling system that is a quarter century old. it doesn't have to be this way. we have a program right now, the presidential innovation fellow program that brings in highly professionals to upgrade our

technology. these are gears, designers, engineers and theirs and they introduce new approaches to make their approaches to make it. i sponsored the talent act to make sure this program continues into the future by drawing on the great talent of the american people, we can make government, effective, efficient and accountable. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desaulnier; i rise today in strong support of the talent act, a bill to ensure we continue to bring top private sector innovators to solve problems at federal agencies. the presidential innovation

fellows program was established by president obama in 2012 to identify and pursue projects that apply and implement innovative tech neeks in as little as six months. it was made permanent in 2015 and would be codified by the bill before us today. h.r. 39 would require the general services administration to continue managing the program with guidance from an advisory board comprised of representatives from different agencies. over 100 presidential innovation fellows have been appointed to work along side civil servants at 25 federal agencies and departments. if those agencies, they have been able to merge their experience from companies and successful nonprofits with their desire to contribute to society. this collaboration has allowed the federal government to obtain new tools, develop new

technologies and ultimately become more effective and efficient. presidential innovation fellows have reshaped the way americans interact from health care and science to law enforcement and disaster response. 15 million americans can access their health data as a result of the blue button initiative and cancer patients can search for clinical trials to support the cancer moonshot initiative. and veterans can now more readily access custom proper thetic designs and citizens can review data on officer-involved shootings and fema can better target and prioritize their response to natural disasters. all of these things have been made possible through the

innovation fellows program and it is crucial we continue these endeavors which ensuring the programs. i urge my colleagues to support this and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hurd: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hurd: today i'm urging my colleagues to support the talent act introduced by kevin mccarthy of california. this bill passed the house on a strong bipartisan vote in the 114th congress and i'm glad to enact this important legislation into law. the talent act makes permanent the fellows program that was created in 2012. this program recruits innovators and technologists from across the united states. the fellows serve in the washington, d.c., area for 12

months at an executive agency. these agencies include the department of energy, nasa, and the department of veterans affairs. fellows bring with them their experience in the private sector to help government turn ideas into tangible results that benefit the american people. since 2012, at least 96 top innovators have participated in the program. past and current fellows have held degrees and won awards including fullbright scholarships and truman national security fellowships. they are the best and the brightest that the united states has to offer and seek to utilize the skills for the american people. they are giving the federal government the tools it needs to successfully operate in the 21st century. this is uncle sam's list to

create a center in which gencies can for go in favor of existing services provided by the federal agencies. this program has saved $2.5 billion, billion with a b and helping government to become more effective and efficient. i commend the leader to bring this innovation to the government and i urge support for this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california, mr. deem sean iowa is recognized. mr. desaulnier; i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: i thank mr. hurd for his work and ongoing work on this issue. i rise in support of this bipartisan bill, which builds on the work that majority leader

mccarthy and i and others in this house have been doing to modernize government technology and renew america's faith in government. in 2016, the satisfaction with the government spanned the political spectrum. that's a shame because government is a force for improving peoples' lives, keeping our country safe and expanding opportunities for all americans. that's why i unveiled the renewing america's faith in genda. one of the goals of our agenda is modernizing government technology. most americans understand the power of technology. and the majority leader spoke of it in so many different as pets of our lives how digitizing

businesses makes it more transparent and accountable and we have seen it in the private sector. people shop on sites like a.m.a zon or catch a ride using uber. and bringing the latest practices would make a huge difference in serving our citizens and streamlining the way government works for the american people. last year, i worked with the obama administration and tony scott to advance one of its top priorities in this area creating a technology modernization fund with the upgrade of the most insecure technology systems. mr. hurd was involved deeply in that effort. the result was the morpizing government technology act which the house passed.

and with the help of mr. chafe et cetera. last month, kevin mccarthy expressed support for president obama's most successful efforts in bringing silicon valley talent into the federal work force. the u.s. digital service and 18-f program. i visited the program in fran and was extraordinarily impressed with the individuals who peopled that project and were giving of their time. i guess we are paying them a little bit, but they were giving their time. today's bill would make permanent the precursor to both these programs, the presidential innovation fellows. this program has a proven track record of bringing top talent from the innovation economy into the federal workforce where it is needed. i hope the next administration will continue all of these

programs which have begun to change the culture within our government. i hope that the talented individuals, many of whom that i referenced left high-paying jobs in the private sector will stay on through the transition and continue to serve their country by improving technology. president obama made real progress in this area including with the open data directive and his cyber national action plan. more could have been achieved if congress had aagreed to his request to invest more in these areas. we have seen a dramatic example of why cybersecurity investment is so critically important for our country, not for democrats, not for republicans but for all americans. this is an effort towards that end. i hope we can work together in this new congress to unleash the transformative power and help

renew america's faith in our government. that is critical if we are to be successful as a nation. i'm sure that is all of us want to do on a bipartisan basis. i thank mr. deep sean iowa for his efforts and i thank mr. hurd. and i'm pleased to join with my counterpart, mr. mccarthy in strong support and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hurd: we have no further speakers and are prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. he gentleman from california is the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is ecognized. mr. desaulnier: i appreciate the

work by mr. hurd and the comments by the administration and mr. mccarthy and mr. hoyer. i have no further speak ornse the de so i yield back alance of my time. mr. hurd: i urge adoption of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 39. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the -- >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having

risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute

speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, this week, north korea declared it can launch an intercontinental ballistic missile at any time it wishes. mr. poe: >> even our own deputy secretary of state warned that little kim's weapons capabilities have shown qualitative improvement in the last year, resulting in, quote, unprecedented level of activity. why is that? well, because this administration has done little to stop little kim. instead, the administration has naively pursued a strategy it calls, quote, strategic patience. strategic patience is a fancy phrase for, ignoring the obvious. there was a time when we kept north korea on the state spon or of terrorism list.

they came off the list because they promised us that they -- they made promises that they have clearly broken. mischievous little kim's threats continue to grow belleder and -- bolder and bolder and no repercussions. we cannot afford to risk the security of our citizens for the sake of diplomatic strategy that has proven failure. this week, i will reintroduce legislation to put north korea back on the state sponsor of terrorism list. because little kim is a terror to world peace. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to give thanks. i want to give thanks to the people of the 44th for giving me the honor and privilege to

serve them my district is rich with immigrants, my own mom who turns 76 today is an immigrant from mexico who came here with a third grade education so her kids could have a shot at the american dream. in my district only 10% of students go on to college. i'm grateful to be one of those 10 percenters who beat the odds and got a piece of the american dream. but those numbers are unacceptable. i pledge to fight for them, to make sure that everyone, regardless of income, immigration status, or race, has a shot at the american dream. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. are there further requests for one-minute remarks? hearing none, the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. johnson of georgia for today and january 11. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request s granted.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's always an honor to be here and especially to look out and see some people for whom i have imminent respect in this body. that's a nice thing. to be in a body where i actually have respect for people in the body. a good thing. we know that the election, as president obama told us quite uccinctly eight years ago, have consequences. elections do have consequences. and we have a new team coming in to town and one of the things that has concerned me greatly and i know it's concerned many in this body, is

that we as a nation have had give protection basically to this idea of freedom that our founders had,, cultivated, gave their lives to create, and as i've mentioned from this podium previously, as i was told by some west african we were so ogo, excited when you elected your first black president, but since your president has been there, we've seen america get weaker and weaker and we all are christians, we know where we're going when we die but we also know our only chance for peace in this world is if america is strong. so please, go back to

washington and please tell the other members of congress, stop getting weaker. we suffer when you get weaker. and i've seen this article from melissa mullins, after a study was done, it said christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world. and that's while america is supposed to be the strongest nation in the world. at this point, though, mr. he's , i see my friend, here on the floor, i would like to yield to him for such time as he may consume. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it is an honor and privilege to serve the constituents of the second congressional district of west virginia for a second term. session in the 115th of congress , my top legislative priorities are rolling back anti-coal regulations that have been imposed by president obama's administration over the last eight year, fithing the drug

epidemic, repeeling obamacare, and making health care more affordable and accessible and investing in our roads, bridges, airports and other key infrastructure. west virginia needs good-paying jobs. mr. mooney: president obama has spent the last eight years waging a war on coal on our country. during this session of congress, we must continue to work together to promote an all of the above energy strategy that conserves our natural resources, cultivates our economy and jobs, and promotes american energy independence. one of our nation's and our state's greatest natural resources is our fossil fuel. fossil fuel, including coal, supplies around 85% of our nation's energy. and west virginia produces about 15% of that total. under the outgoing

administration, we have seen our west virginia energy industries come under attack, even though we have made significant strides in recent years to improve the quality of our air, land, and water. by rolling back harmful regulations like the so-called stream protection rule we can save 30,000 jobs in the appalachian region right now. that's why last year i introduced my bill, the supporting transparent regulatory and environmental actions in mining act, also known as the stream act. my bill was passed by the house last year with bipartisan support and i will continue to fight to stop this outoutrageous rule from taking effect. another top priority for this congress must be stopping the drug epidemic in our country. drug abuse ravages our communities, rips families apart, and further ruptures our state's already ailing economy.

this issue is above party politics. it's a plague that both parties must come together to solve. there is no magical solution to this epkemic -- epidemic. we need local, state, and federal officials to work together to effectively and efficiently fight back. this congress, this past congress, i worked with members on both sides of the aisle to find commonsense solutions to fight back against this scourge. that's why i introduced h.r. 4499, the promoting responsible opioid prescribing act. this bipartisan bill struck out a harmful provision of obama care that places unnecessary pressure on doctors and hospitals to prescribe narcotic pain medicine. i'm proud to say that the department of health and human services announced that they changed their policy and implemented my bill. this change in policy is an

important part of the fight against opioid abuse. i will remain steadfast in my efforts to fight this epidemic. another important way to fight back against the drug epidemic is by making health care more accessible and affordable. the first tepep -- the first step to do this is to repeal obamacare. health care corses are on the rise because obamacare adds burdensome taxes, regulations and mandates onto american consumers. a limited choice in health insurance plans is harming families and their budgets. obamacare will kill 2.5 million jobs in 10 years, has continued to raise health insurance costs, and has placed the federal government in between patients and their doctors. research done by the national center for policy analysis found that average monthly premium costs increased for almost everyone, regardless of

their age, race, or gender, after obamacare was implemented. as a republican in congress, i want to ensure that everyone has access to health care. but i want it to be quality health care that people choose for themses. that's why republicans have come up with a plan that we call a better way. our plan recognizes that people deserve more patient-centered care, not more bureaucracy. that means more choices, not more mandates. the better way plan offers many improvements that will help west virginia's second congressional drigget, including commonsense reforms such as allowing health insurance sales across state lines. simple changes like these will lower costs and increase choice for americans. finally, it is imperative to pass bills that invest in our nation's deteriorating

infrastructure. president-elect trump has said that updating our nation's infrastructure is a pop try -- a top priority for his administration. the federal highway administration has classified more than 142,000 bridges as either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. also from the federal highway administration, traffic delays cost the u.s. economy more than $50 billion annually. most major roads are rated as less than good condition. improvement to our nation's infrastructure would greatly benefit west virginia, which needs road, bridge, and rail repairs. we are also in need of water, sewer, and power line repairs. by improving the transportation i look forward to pen working with my colleagues in the house and senate as well as the new administration to make sure that these legislative

priorities take hold. thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield my time back to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: i appreciate mr. mooney's points. well made. this administration hasn't turned around health care in america and hasn't seen more choices, people keeping their doctors, keeping their insurance policies they like. they have seen deduct i believe so skyrocket so that so many eople across america, that $5,000, $7,000 deductibles, we never had high deductibles like that before and that meant they weren't going to get insurance help and totally on their own and every single payment they

made even if they got subsidies from the federal government was for nothing. they got no help. they could never come up with enough money in one year to meet the deductible so the insurance would start paying in. what's most's griegeous that apparently we found out that much of this was would happen efore people had obamacare forced on to them. and then in the last week, we ve had this story from the "washington times" finding out that the i.r.s. prioritized their role in obamacare over taxpayer customer service. that's what their own inspector general report said.

you would think that an administration that says their number one concern was america's health care, that they would not drive so many people off of the insurance they had, they loved, the they could afford, had doctor in the system they could use, had the medicine in the policy covered, that they could use, millions have been driven off of their policies to medicaid which so many doctors don't even take, and this administration has called it a great victory. and then in the middle of all of this, we knew it was talked about back in 2010 when this bill was being passed, that there could be 17,000, 18,000 new i.r.s. agents that would force obamacare upon the

country. and as so many people have reported, when you get a notice from the internal revenue service they are coming after you, it does not do anything to enhance your health. kltv in my hometown contacted me wanting to know what was happening with the i.r.s. it has been outrageous what they have been doing across the country and local taxpayer service assistants offices. it was reported to us that a sign was put up by one of the i.r.s. employees that basically, if you don't like the long line and the bad service, then contact your member of congress. and fortunately, many did, so we

became acutely aware of it. and what was worse, we had an office in longview and some people are required to go get a documentation from the i.r.s. in order to do what they need whether it's with insurance with their employer, and they couldn't get into the i.r.s. office and the i.r.s. office closed in longview making it more difficult for americans in east texas to get the customer service they needed. well, this article from from "the "washington times" points out that the i.r.s. has made it much more painful for taxpayers than it should have been and that's according to the i.r.s.'s inspector general, that was in a

report on thursday that accused the agency for cutting money for customer service and ignoring phone calls while moving the money to keep obamacare and other administration priorities on track. what that means is that the i.r.s. would be there to bully people who had concerns about problems with obamacare which certainly would not help their health at all. but one reporter had told me that previously they were told by the i.r.s. that i.r.s. cuss funding and that's why customer service was cut. and yet, when we presented the actual facts of what had ppened, yes, in the past six years, the house of

representatives, not the senate, for heaven's sake, they haven't cut anything, but the house of representatives cut our own budgets by 22% over a three-year period. and that's pretty dramatic. anybody who has had to cut their budget by a fourth understands that americans had to do it across the country. we did it right here in the house of representatives. and it's been very difficult for some of our offices to provide the care for constituents. so many areas were it, we're the ones that can help them to stand up against the bureaucracy and demand that they get what the government's required to provide. and yet, we were able to do it. on the other hand, the i.r.s.

wasn't cut 22% like the house cut ourselves down to bone, in fact, they had a substantially smaller cut over two years, i believe it was. ut in this past year, we increased the amount of money the i.r.s. got by millions and millions of dollars. and what the i.r.s. chose to do , not help taxpayer service which could also help the i.r.s. from increasing their punitive makeagainst taxpayers that mistakes because they didn't get proper advisor service from the i.r.s. assistance. but, no, they moved the money,

the massive increase we gave to the i.r.s., they moved it over be a bigger bully regarding obamacare and cut out offices ike the one in long sleep view -- longview and fell more into the stereotype than i have ever seen for the i.r.s. this says i.r.s. employees ignored more than 30 million phone calls from desperate taxpayers seeking help in the runup to the 2015 filing deadline. and those who did get through often waited a half hour before getting help. the i.r.s. apologized publicly for the poor service and blamed congress and saying congress

needs to pony up more money. said it ssell george eliminated $150 million from customer service, slashing more than 2,000 staff positions and that's so they could go after more enforcement of obamacare. as if obamacare wasn't doing enough damage to people's health as it was. as my friend, house ways and means committee chairman kevin brady pointed out, the i.r.s. is running out of excuses for its poor management decisions. this new report is even more proof the i.r.s. is failing the

very people it was created to serve, american taxpayers. congress did add more money for the agency last year. just as i was saying, mr. speaker. this article also echos the same thing. and the i.r.s. doubled the number of calls it was able to answer but the agency has promised to maintain the level of service for next year. but let's face it. the i.r.s. has shown they will target people because of their political beliefs. they will allow themselves -- not just allow themselves but insert themselves and allowed themselves to be political that s, certainly saw occurred from what's come out from 2012. did they affect the election? it's hard to say.

but they certainly prevented many conservative groups from being able to organize. i have heard some who are liberal, not that smart, asking questions, well, i don't see how that would hurt conservative groups just because the i.r.s. didn't recognize them. they could have still ahead and organized and done their thing. and again, apparently they pay attention to mainstream media and don't think for themselves, because when one understands the power of the internal revenue code in the united states, you put a group together and you pool your money into one pool to start spending as a group, somebody's going to be in trouble and going to be accounting for that money as

income. i mean, there may be creative ways to handle it, but the way you're supposed to handle it is to get recognition from the that al revenue service you have a group that can come together, put your money together and work together oward a common goal. liberal groups haven't had much approval, but conservative groups were targeted by the i.r.s. and there is a law -- we didn't need to pass a new one -- that according to the facts that have come out regarding lois lerner and others, probable cause to believe there were

crimes committed and yet nothing was done. why? because they were groups that were persecuted and not allowed to organize that did not support this administration, therefore, according to the justice department, that became more of a just us department. they weren't going to pursue nything like that. this report from paul beddard a refugees to the united states, even more than this year. en there's a list from the united nations refugee resettlement referrals, this report that came out in the last

week, less than a week, and and he u.n. reports that the in 2015refugees settled 82,491 of the 134,000 000 were sent to the united states. that, despite the fact that information came out, study done, that actually weakens support, 12 refugees in place in the middle east for the same price of bringing one refugee to the united states. in fact, if this

administration, they didn't have to use the term red line, if this administration simply said, we are going to make sure there's a safe zone in which people can live in the middle east in a certain area and the u.n. will assist them with food, hopefully without raping the women and girls, because they -- as they have in some areas, but we'll provide them a safe zone and their needs will be cared for there, and we can handle 12 times as many for the ame price as bringing one into the physical united states. it's been discussed at length and i think voters understood well when they voted donald .rump in as president there are so many of these refugees that simply cannot be vetted.

and we know this administration has made mistake after mistake, not only with people that we have no information to use to determine whether or not they're a threat because we have no background information also many of these, but once they're here we don't know where they are, we don't know where they go, we don't know even the threat, and then on top of that, we find out hundreds, maybe thousands, we know hundreds, of people were supposed to be deported, that this administration accidently, instead of deporting them and getting them out of the country so they were no longer a threat this administration accidently granted them citizenship.

there's some things that this government could do and you would say, well, it's easy to understand. that's an easy mistake. instead of a one they put an 11. instead of a zero, they put a three. but instead of deporting people and getting them out of our country, this administration accidently gives them itizenship has made clear that they are not capable of protecting us from the threats that we're seeing all over europe and other areas of the world. and a point of personal privilege, really, i would like, mr. speaker, to shout out to the t.s.a., underneath our

department of homeland security . it was such an honor to be ingled out last friday for the two molestations, apparently i am attractive when it comes to t.s.a. agents wanting to feel up and down, made sure all the parts are actually attached. and they did a very good job of that both times on friday evening when i was flying become to texas. so my thanks to the t.s.a., job well done, delayed me 30 minutes or so, but what was such a -- i kept thinking the t.s.a. agent is going to lie back and have a cigarette or something, but that never happened. the nyway, due regards for t.s.a. and i am really and truly hoping that we can change

substantially management of the t.s.a. in this coming year at we see fter airport two, three, four times longer line for the t.s.a. precheck than there is for the general boarding. t.s.a. continues to encourage people, go ahead and apply. we can streamline your getting through the inspection. and yes, that does mean when you're in precheck you will enjoy having hands laid on you, not in a christian kind of sense. but over and over, there are good t.s.a. agents, i'm finding all over the country, but the

management is atrocious. how long would any security agency stay in business if every day they had longer lines in one area that was the least reat to our security as they do in the general boarding lines that need to be more carefully monitored, we're old. you'd fire them and hire another security agency. i haven't seen a study done on this but as i recall, because i was watching back through my , judge chief justice and chief justice. but we'll have to go back and look, but there were so many screams from congress, especially the senate, that we

have -- especially on the other side of the aisle, we have got to have the federal government take over security at the airports. we have got to. we're in such danger. we have to have that happen. has security been enhanced by adding tens of thousands of people to the government unions? no. it hasn't. really hasn't. so when i want to go back and look, it seems like i remember years ago, after the democrats were able to prevail over republicans who were in the majority, get them agree to federalize the security at airports so that they could get them in the government unions, i was thinking, i don't know that that's really going to help. are we going to see a better quality of t.s.a. agent than we had in private security? and i would like to see an

official number, maybe if somebody in homeland security is listening, mr. speaker, they could, in their time between looking the other way as people come into the country illegally, might just look up how many private security not t personnel were hired by t.s.a. because you know, the reason for federalizing the security was, we'll get a better quality of security. seems like there was a lawsuit back there by a couple hundred people maybe, where the only ones that weren't hired by t.s.a., out of the thousands and thousands, the only ones that weren't hired. and seems like there was a of, yeah, response

we really needed people that could read and had finished high school and you couldn't read or finish high school, you know, we just -- we really needed that level. so basically, it seems what in ened is one group here congress, and it wasn't the republicans, had their way. the t.s.a., the security at airports was federalized. we're not seeing increased percentage of capturing items that are coming in. i got to say, they do a good job of feeling up and down my person. but not really a threat. though homeland security would assume, i was in the army for four years. i am a strong christian, i

believe in the bible. and i believe in the united states constitution as the greatest governing document that was ever promulgated. an apparently, according to the minds at the top of this homeland security department, that makes me more of a threat than most anybody in the country. heck, i was even told back in london, coming back, that was from another trip to egypt, maybe israel, and i had to go out from security, come back through, and i was told by one of the security guys, sir, i know who you are and your position, but your homeland security department tells us we ave to thoroughly inspect your

baggage and you personally. british t from the security folks as well. yeah. but apparently, you believe in the constitution, believe in the bible, you've served your country, the united states army, you're a christian, then you're a big-time threat. it'll be so nice to have an administration that doesn't see the world the way this dministration has seen it. e had a lecture from the secretary of state, and it was amened and hallelujahed by the , esident of the united states when he condemned israel over and over and over.

we stabbed our friend israel in the back. there are reports, some sectors, that not only did we abstain but we encouraged the resolution to be brought forward so that israel could be it apeash he generated this article from victor davis hansen from national review , he said, secretary of state john kerry echoing other policymakers in the obama administration blasted israel last week in a 70-minute rant about its supposedly self-destructive policies. why does the world, including now the u.s., and i would submit, mr. speaker, not for uch longer, single out liberal, lawful israel, but refrain from chastising truly

ill liberal countries? kerry has never sermonized so long about his plan to solve the syrian crisis that led to some 500,000 deaths, or the vast migrant crisis that's nearly wrecked the european union. no one in this administration has shown as much anger about the many thousands who have been killed and jailed in the castro brothers' cuba, much less about the current stone age conditions in venezuela or the nightmarish government of in ident rod rye go duterte the philippines. president obama did not champion the cause of the oppressed during the green revolution of 2009 in iran. did kerry and obama become so outraged after russia oo-- cupied cry mia and eastern

ukraine? ambassador to the united nations samantha power was never so impassioned other the borders of chinese occupiedity bet or over turkish occupied northern cyprus. in terms of , hening back to the palestinian refugee crisis that started in the late 1940's, no one talks today in similar fashion about the jews who survived the holocaust and walked home only to find that their houses in eastern europe were gone or occupied by others , much less do we recall the 11 million german civilians who were ethnically clensed from eastern europe in 1945 by the soviets and their imposed communist governments. certainly they're not still -- there are not still refugee camps outside dresden for those places -- those persons displaced from east prussia 70

years ago. more recently, few nations at the u.n. faulted the kuwaiti government for the expulsion of 00,000 palestinians after the liberation of kuwait by coalition forces in 1991. yet on from settlements to human rights, to the status of women, u.n. members routinely violate uman rights and their targeted at liberal israel. when president obama entered office, among his first acts was to give an interview with the saudi-news outlet championing his outreach to the most nondemocratic islamic world and to blast democratic israel ol settlements, partly the reason for such inordinate criticism of

article says -- i'm not going to read that part. if israel had 100 million people and was large, the world would not play the bully. instead the u.n. and europe would likely leave it alone just as they depiff a pass to human rights offenders such as pakistan and indonesia. if israel was as small as israel, the obama administration would not have reached out to iran and would have left israel alone. israel's supposed western friends sort out the enemies by the relative natural resources, gee oggra if i and population and conclude that supporting

srael is a bad deal and a cost benefit term. the criticism is explained by oil, an issue that is changing an oils both the u.s. is importers. and i might add when we have a new president, that will drop even further because the united states will begin to produce more of the energy that we have been blessed with. there will be more nations in the world that will not have to go begging to russia, which supposedly, those on the left are so concerned about these days and so concerned, let us produce more west texas oil and more oil and gas from around the country and we will be energy

independent and as smart people pointed out, it's a whole lot of terrorists to take on terrorists that are throwing rocks than throwing nuclear weapons. back to this point being made here in "national review." partly the criticism of israel explained by oil, an issue that they are g daily as oil importers. 40% of the world's oil is sold nations ner and gulf nd they continue to count on oil. partly anti--israel rhetoric is due to hurd politics. he palestinians and and on

western issues like gender equality, religious tolerance have drafted their cause to the race, class victimization. western nations do not worry about assorted non-western crimes such as genocides, mass clentionings or political-induced famines. nstead they prefer sermonses a virtue signalling. partly the piling on israel is due to american leverage over usaid. s a recipient of he bomb administration expects generosity.

yet the u.s. rarely gives you how dare you lectures to less liberal recipients such as the palestinians, for example for their lack of free elections not o mention their lack of paying encouraging and moralizing people who are suicide bombers that are successful in killing innocent victims. its article says because of the ostility towards israel is jealousy. few nations would care. instead the image of a proud successful westernized nation as many ll is degrading to and astounding success to many

that the entire world takes notice. but partly the source of any raelism is ancient anti-semitism. if israelis were egyptians, running the west bank as they did for 20 years or so, no one would care, israelis are jews. thus israel earns negative scrutiny that is never extended to others. obama and his diplomatic team should have known all this. perhaps they do. but they simply don't care. then we find out this administration -- we see what happens when there is yet another terrorist attack in israel. what does this administration do after such a powerful chastising of our dear friend israel?

nothing. but palestinians, who may be linked to isis ran a truck into soldiers on sunday, killing four people and wounding 15 others before being shot dead in one of deadliest attacks. now, even that, when friends of fox news, is not as accurate as it could be deadliest. yes, there were soldiers that were killed. they were on a sightseing tour. d apparently the insidious radical islamists sat part and ited for them to be in a vulnerable position, not in a position to use weapons, not fighting, they were sightseeing

and this radical islamist saw these people getting off the bus and that's when he moved and became the murdering blood -thirsty radical islamist that e was. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 14 minutes remaining. mr. gohmert: i want to finish talking about this issue that's been raised about the russians being such a big threat to our elections. somehow they are screaming on capitol hill that we need to have security of the snet. and -- internet. and one of the last things we

needed to do is give control of a website determinations to the international community that was created as an american entity, the internet. we had control over the organization controlling the web sites. and this president did irreparable damage to our security -- oh, i know, he thinks he didn't. and i'm not accusing anything untoward, but irreparable damage was giving that power over to the so-called international community. but this article from john fund, who had a great book br election out and he quotes from former colleague, rahm

emmanuel. never want a serious crisis to go to waste. he told a conference of top c.e.o.'s while his boss was still elect president-elect. rushed tore emergency legislation characterized the ama presidency and nowishing -- now issuing policies. and and the constitution explicitly gives states the power to set the times, manners and places to holding elections. homeland security, jeh johnson used the excuse of friday's report of russia's hacking of the democratic national committee to declare state and

local voting system will be designated at critical pieces of infrastructure so the department of homeland security can protect them from hackers. miss move coming just 15 days before president obama leaves office. and they question the wisdom and its constitutionality. quote, while the federal government has the general power to protect the nation's cyber infrastructure, they cannot intrude without clear constitutional mandate, unquote. unhue, a ucla professor. there is no federal power to control or secure elections. each state administers its elections. ateed shapiro, senior fellow constitutional stud eyes at the

institute, it would state a dangerous precedent to take over the processes. secretary johnson's decisions arked outrage who are most knowledgeable. the 50 secretaries of state who run the election process. even johnson admitted that quote, many of them are opposed o this designation, unquote. secretary of state of georgia told me that johnson's actions use it as an excuse to subvert the constitution and this is the basis for federal encroachment into election systems. mr. speaker, i think it's important to pause and look at what happened in this last election. now, there have been some people

saying, as i heard down at the senate in the kennedy room at jeff sessions' hearing, there were 17 intelligence agencies that agreed with the russian hacking. i'm not sure they must have seen something i didn't. but i understood there was something like three. and that we have been told actually, they had these nclusions, but people have admitted, you know, actually they didn't hack our election system, didn't hack any voting machines. clapper admitted that and he said -- he testified very falsely -- he has admitted under oath that he has not been truthful under oath to the senate before. so as a law professor once asked

if you have admitted lying, well, now -- are you lying now? or were you lying then? if you admit you are lying, which one is the lie? were you lying then or lying now. you told us you are a liar. which one is it? d what we find among smart juries, once you found you lied to them, they don't trust you about anything else. and that contributed to the voting results we had. t the federalists had an article -- but, conservative headquarters, russian hacking story, i get to blame the

russians and they get to take control of the voting system. well, all that has come out is, mebody hacked john podesta's emails that most likely, an unprotected server. we lost secrets we may never know. podesta's was at least protected. and people saw published what democratic people participated in hillary clinton campaign had said about christians, catholics, the did you policity trying to bring down bernie sanders, the did you policity at debates. of llegal, the rule

revealing questions before debate. and shockingly, when the truth was reveal and certain people in the hillary clinton administration or in their campaign were exposed as lying about so many things, those people are now saying, hey, when america found out we were lying, they voted against hillary. they heard our election -- hurt our election. they affected our election because we were exposed as liars and it cost us votes. that's grossly unfair. the american people should never have known the truth, that we were lying about so many things, that we were conspiring to bring down bernie sanders and defeating him unfairly. the american people -- and defeat him unfairly. the american people weren't supposed to find those things out and, dog gone it, those russians need to be punished. i don't know where it came from d i also know as a fact that

some intelligence personnel have lied to the chairmen of our intel committee in the last congress. i know, it's a fact. i don't know who it was, but they did. when you have clapper say, yeah, i came in here and testified about a bunch of stuff that wasn't true, you wonder, wouldn't it be a good dea to take those incredible individuals in our intelligence agencies that have been faithful to our country, served our country, not their political agenda, and done great things for america. let's get them in the positions of authority in the intelligence agencies. since they've been working there, they'll know what to do. they'll know who to trust, who not to trust. because, as you find out, you ever sit on the bench as a

felony judge very long, doesn't matter what area of life you're in, there are people that are not honest. fortunately in law enforcement, intelligence agencies, homeland security, places like that, my opinion, there's a much higher number of good, honorable, honest people that care about providing for the safety of the american people. that's where we need to go. find those people and those departments and put them in positions of leadership. we have a great opportunity now before us. d if you're agnosic or atheist, you should believe it was all a roll of the dice this kind of stuff happens -- dice. this kind of stuff happens. hey, eeg a pragmatist -- even a

pragmatist agnostic would probably say, well, if i'm honest, somebody said it wasn't the russians, indications were it may well have been an unhappy democratic operative in -- arty that provided wherever they came from, information was provided to the american public, showing that terribly unfair and untruthful things had been said or done and they voted against the party that had apparently done the unfair, untruthful things. , as hink we need to look shakespeare would say, not to our stars, but in ourselves. personally i think we were

mercifully given another chance to give back to the american people the power that this congress and the executive branches ewe certained for far too long -- usurped for far too long and let america be america. not the evil parts, the k.k.k., the lynchings, the horrid things that mar our history, but the goodness, the part of america that would say, i don't care about the k.k.k., i am going to take you into my home, i'm going to protect you. those parts of america that said, i don't care what color fellow is, we're human beings and we've got some good ideas and we're going to work together and we're going to raise this nation to heights it's never seen before. i'm hoping and praying that's where we're headed. 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 3, 2017, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: a thank you, mr. speaker. -- thank you, mr. speaker. indeed, we do have an extraordinary country. down through the last 230 years, this congress has met, has discussed, decided, voted upon and set in place policies that advanced our country. and we're so very fortunate, all of us americans, to be living here with all the promise that this incredible history has given us. but at this period of time, we also have some profound

questions about where this country is going. we wake up and we go, what's happening here? what's happening in the international scene? what's all this about russia? hacking. what is all about this -- all this about trying to influence the american election, did they really and did it really happen? was it effective? we know it really happened. the american public is scratch -- scratching their head and they're going, what is it? and then all this talk about change. all this talk about, we're going to change things. we're going to repeal obamacare. we're going to replace it with something great. hm.

i wonder. what that might be. and i suspect all across this nation there are men, women, families that are also wondering, what do they mean? it will be great? what is it? -- what is it that's great? well, if you were to go around the capitol, if you were to talk to members in the house of representatives or over in the senate and say, so, the go tock great -- it's going to be great, what is it? well, we'll tell you tomorrow. we'll tell you later. but it'll be great. maybe. maybe not. right now the senate is working on a piece of legislation that will set the stage for the repeal of the affordable care act. and some would dericively call it the obamacare.

repeal it. oh, yeah. get rid of that thing. but not to worry, the going to be great, as soon as it's gone -- it's going to be great as soon as it's gone. really? i don't think so. i know that in my part of in fornia, a lot of people, fact, more than 20,000, won't think it's great at all. they're going to lose their health care. and there are a whole lot of seniors in my community that are going, wow, it's going to be great, really? but i'll lose my annual checkup. and that awesome drug doughnut hole that was so frightening just years ago is going to come back? that's not so great. i drove into town or into the capitol today, i don't live so far away, but the 20 degrees and i decided i'd rather drive than freeze. so i drove in and an advertisement came on the radio and it said, you're going to

get a trillion-dollar tax cut. wonderful. now the middle class will have a trillion-dollar tax cut. that's not what i saw last night when i read the statistics. about the great repeal of the affordable care act. in fact, i read something quite different from the tax committees, from america's various people. let me put something up here. ere it is. who gets that trillion-dollar tax cut? who is it? is it the middle class? well, i don't think so. because when you look at the numbers, it goes to the very wealthy. they're the ones who are going to get the tax cuts with the repeal of obamacare. when the affordable care act is repealed, the way it's

presently going, the bill that's over in the senate will require that the taxes that re put in place to support the affordable care act and to ovide insurance for 20 million people, that's both the government insurance, the medicaid, medical in california, and the subsidized insurance from the various programs that exist state by state, that money was raised from the wealthy and when the tax cuts come into place, here's the real story. the top 1%, you remember the 1% ers, remember all that discussion about the 1% and the 99%? the 1% get 57% of that trillion dollars. everyone else gets to split the

remaining 45%. the top 1/10 of the taxpayers in california, we're talking about the super wealthy, we're talk about the folks that are actually going to be in the president-elect's cabinet, you know, the billionaires that he's going to put into the cabinet, we're talking about those guys. roughly $200,000-a-year tax break. but after all, they're hurting. they need a few more hundred thousand dollars along the way. so the trillion-dollar tax break that is the foundation of the repeal, you eliminate the money, the program's not working. there will not be annual visits for seniors so that they can stay healthy, so that they can control their blood pressure, their diabetes, mammograms and all the rest that go with that. for the t be money

3.7 million californians that presently are able to get coverage under the medical program. there won't be money for the almost two million californians that are in the subsidized pool called covered california. that money won't be there. those folks are going to be out. by the way, the repeal will remove the insurance for 30 million americans. all across the country. but who gets the real benefit here? the super wealthy. he top 1% will get 57% of that trillion-dollar tax break. and the rest of us will share n the 43% remaining.

another way to look at it, folks, it will be great, but for who? well, if you break the american public into the five sectors, the first 20%, next 20%, next 20%, and then the top 20%. so these are the real poor down here, in the lower 20%. and these are the super wealthy in the top 20%. so what happens? when you repeal the affordable care act, as is now happening in the senate, and it will be over here either this week or early next week, and then this house will take it up and it too will vote on that very same dget bill that will create a trillion-dollar tax cut over the next decade, who will get the money? there you go. the top 20%. of wind up with a full 74%

that. and despite that little advertisement that i heard on the radio, which said, oh, the poor and the middle class, they're going to get it, really? well, let's see. oh, and the %, next will get 5.9% of it. do you have any idea what they're going to lose? they're going to lose the subsidy on their insurance programs, they won't be able to afford it, they will lose their insurance. for some of them on the medicaid program in california, unless the state of california can find $16.8 billion to replace the money that just disappeared with the repeal of the affordable care act and that money has been transferred to the top 20%. so these folks down here, the

american public, are the losers and who are the winners, the ones who are able to buy insurance. i loved this. not to worry. we are going to give an opportunity for people to buy their own insurance and give them a tax break. you mean these people have a lot money to go out and buy the insurance. no. it's the folks on top that will been pit. this really is a massive shift of a trillion dollars from those people that are now insured, those people that are people who have been and it's a massive

shift from the ability for those people to get health care, for those people that are on the exchanges and able to get subsidized insurance so they can afford it, for those people who are seniors and get free annual checkups and have their costs reduced as the doughnut hole reduces and it is taken out of their pockets and shifted to the wealthy of america. that's what is happening. that's what this repeal of the affordable care act is. and then you look at the implications of that. what about the hospitals that have been able to ramp up their services? what about the reforms that were in the affordable care act? the insurance reforps that said to the insurance companies, no.

no. no. you can no longer discriminate because that person is a woman or has a pre-existing condition. this is important, folks. and if you are scratching your head and wondering what's going on here. listen carefully, because this super rapid train is about to come into the house of representatives and sweep through here wiping out the health care benefits of 30 million americans. and for those who are not directly affected, they, too, e going to wind up in a very precarious situation, because alsoeforms will also, will be repealed. joining me tonight to discuss this and social security -- by

the way, social security, also on the chopping block, are two of my colleagues, marcy kaptur from ohio, who has been an extraordinary leader on the issues of manufacturing, making it in america, looking out for seniors and for people who are in need of help and support. congresswoman kaptur, share us your thoughts on what is happening in washington? ms. kaptur: you are a rare and talented member. you serve the people of california every day of the week, 24/7 and privilege to appear with you and congressman paul tonko, one of our most talented members from upstate new york like a region of my own from the outsourcing of jobs and

we are honored to serve many traveled my and i own district and state, i find i have to reassure people, any time there is a change, i guess in public life, people need to be bolstered that everything is going to be ok and we are here to be that squad and say to the american people that you have power, too. it isn't just the super rich or the billionaire class that we can label them wealth power. and sometimes it has extraordinary power. but there is people power. i consider myself listed as people power and i appreciate the people of my region allowing me to serve our country and to learn every day and learn how to make the instruments of the

nation work better for them. there is spiritual power and i'm amazed how people's spiritual grounding helps them through our difficult transitions and there is intellectual power and i hope to use that and that is a power in and of itself. and we think about the power of liability. andpower of liberty to heal improve their nation and expand opportunity in their nation and we are aided by curious media sometimes more ridiculous than it needs to be but people trying to find the truth that should lead us forward. we find ourselves by being members here and we hope for the best for our people and the country and the members are very

well motivated and i rise to defend two programs of our society. both social security and medicare and i will try to be brief. but i'm proud to say that our familiarly is one of those families that would have been completely destroyed had it not be for social security and medicare. and but in 1935 after our country crashed economically and major bank failures and stock market crarb, crash, the nation turned to the president to guarantee for ar large segment of our senior citizens decent income. and the social security insurance act was enacted at the urging of president roosevelt. and he was regarded as a saint

in our household. seniors before that time, many were living in poorhouses. they were dying in terrible circumstances and there was no security as a person aged. can you imagine how revolutionary to create area large insurance program to ensure that as people aged or as workers become disabled or they died, that their children would have sources of income? and the program did all of that. t's -- thinking back over 70 years, how transfor mational was that? died know our grandpa who in a county hospital in ohio before the enactment of medicare, i know the conditions that he died under and i know

that when our mother died, it was a different situation. she had social security and medicare and we were able to take care of her and the same was true of our father. our country is getting better and i'm proud of that and proud to be a democrat and it's become a part of our way of life. as i said to seniors, it's an earned benefit. people pay for it every time their paycheck is made and employer matches it. and to survivors and i have had neighbors who lost spouses, what an incredible gift this idea is to the american people and 5 million people depend on social security, one out of every six americans and they list 20

million people out of poverty, people who used to live in poverty. can you imagine what that was like? in 2014, the latest data shows us six million children live in families are getting social security lifting children out of poverty. social security was never a welfare program and all americans contribute to it receive benefits. social security is a compact of trust between generations and the ever hive present century for retirees, for those who are hurt on the job and america's greatest insurance program ever. i happen to be living when lyndon johnson helped to create the medicare program to provide

coverage to people in our country. oday, only 2% of the elderly lack health insurance compared to 48%, over half of this country in 1962 after world war ii before medicare existed. it seemed modern times, in the 1960's, but it wasn't. that is a wow! people are living longer and thank god the people are living longer and they are lowering the long-term cost of care. seniors don't have to pay for mammograms or cancer screenings thanks to the affordable care act. we try to keep the system benefit. every house republican budget has tried to end the medicare guarantee to turn it into a

voucher program. that is going to shut out millions of americans from insurance because the reason we have medicare because they weren't insuring seniors or they'll make the price so high that people won't be able to pay for it and cherry-pick, those who had diabetes or cancers, parkin son's. what kind of a country would this be for heaven's sake. the association of retired persons and completely oppose e republican plan to voucherize and let americans find a plan of their own. these two programs are the most pro-life programs this nation

has ever created. we should be so proud of what we have been able to do as a country. i would say the republican attacks on social security and medicare need to stop. they are america's bull wart for millions and millions of people and proved themselves as lifetime security program. and i want to thank congressman garamendi and congressman tonko. i know how you care about the people of this country and why we're here. we are here to stand with them. i yield back. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, ms. kaptur. i loved your talk about the history and how it came to pass how we have social security, medicare and what happened when we did not. it reminded me of my own history. i remember as a young kid, my

father took me to the county hospital where the neighboring ranch, he was in the county hospital and he was sent to die. ms. kaptur: i can remember the stench. i remember that. mr. garamendi: unbelievable. and i'm sorry, your father -- ms. kaptur: grandpa. and my father had to fight to get him in there. that was before hospice and before medicare. that was a hard thing to experience that our mother and father never protected us from the inevitable. mr. garamendi: i want to turn to our colleague from new york. mr. tonko, to discuss jobs in america, how to enhance our american economy with research, economic development of all kinds, transportation, infrastructure, make it in

america. mr. tonko, we are on a different subject, but one that you are very familiar with and one you spent your entire career addressing and trying to help seniors and others who were on he short end of the stick. . mr. tonko: thank you for bringing us together to talk about key critical components that effect american families specifically. and to be joined with you and ms. kaptur, both of you do your homework, you're a great addition to the house because you challenge us with facts. not fiction. and you care deeply, passionately, about improving, enhancing equality of life. so to stand with both you on this issue is a good feeling for me. just a couple of observationses. i think the ok for government to have a heart. we speak to the heart and soul

of working families across this country by understanding that health care is not a privilege, it's a right. so let's begin with that undamental, basic observation. a right. and what we have seen with this right is over 30 million americans being added to the rolls of the insured over the course of the affordable care act. now, representative kaptur did a great job of speaking to history, of medicare, social security, of the affordable care act. as did representative garamendi. but history tells us that way back -- i remember being at the 75th anniversary celebration of social security, and peep were talking about -- and people were talking about the discrediting going on before social security was enacted into law. there were those who demonized it before it became law. there were those who fought it

ever since. they don't want that right. for working families. i would suggest that social security, medicare, the affordable care act, are rock solid elements of a foundation upon which to grow quality of life and longevity. it's a basic fundamental additive that when brought to our working families across this country, we're providing a service and we're addressing them with dignity. that's what this is about. the demonization of the affordable care act is interesting. because if you look at polling, you will find that people say obamacare, destroying the nation. what about the affordable care act? that's working. my friends, the same issue. it's the same -- it's the same issue. it's the same concept, it's the same program. so what we've tried to do is discredit program that took on a major challenge. took on major industries.

and needed to provide a balance and an act warial outcome -- an actuarial outcome that's providing a goforward and accomplish what you've enacteded a mission. the actuarial science has to be precise. for those who want to repeal, they're talking about, in cases, pulling a brick out of foundation and having it get wobbly. it's going to crash the marketplace. and we're going to have all of these people who have been enrolled or have been forever enrolled in health care impacted by rising costs and disruptive outcomes that will put them at risk. so, like the social security program before the a.c.a., like medicare before the a.c.a., as you floated these boats, as you went forward with time, you learned where you needed to tweak. and you adjusted by amendment format to make the program stronger.

that's what we've been asking for in a partnership here in the house and with the senate. let's work on those areas that may need improvement. .ut do not repeal because repeal without replacement is a disaster. a disaster waiting to happen. we have provided hope for working families across this country. we've had the testimony presented to us, anecdotal evidence that this is working, that for the first time families have enjoyed a connection to a system, a standardized approach. what was the program? people say, i don't want to pay for someone else's health care. you have been paying for it before the a.c.a. it was called the emergency room. and it wasn't standardized because whoever you got at that emergency room in whatever location as you traveled looking for assistance didn't provide a steady flow. and it was a wasteful outcome for taxpayers and an insufficient outcome, a cruel

outcome for those consumers who were impacted by being underinsured or uninsured. so let's set the record straight. we've had a program up and running for eight years now, the republicans have chastised this program. saying it needs to be repealed. we have taken over 65 votes or 65 votes, i believe, to repeal. but there's never been a replacement plan. so what kind of gimmick is this? pull away a program that is working for tens of millions of families? added to the rolls. but not replace? that's disaster waiting to happen. so we challenge our colleagues here in the house. and in the senate down the hall. to be academic about this. to be compassionate about it. to be passionate in our resolve, to make a difference by putting together the

improvements that we require, not repealing. now, we look at the affordable care act and what it means, yes, to our health care. but if you repeal, will you wreak damage on the budget, you will destroy our economy, you will have huge work displacement, work force displacement, and you will slash care for america's working families. is this the outcome that we want? remember, we were one of the last, we were the last industrialized nation to come to the table and provide guaranteed health care. for our families. that's not something of which we're proud. that was destructive. it was insensitive. it was not effective. it was a waste of tax dollars, the way we did it. and so now we go forward with the program. -- program that allows us to now take a look at the history, albeit brief, on the affordable

care act. but understanding where we need to fine tune. we do that. and the challenge is there for all of us. take the cost out of the system for a stronger future and provide at least the same level of quality, if not enhanced quality, as we go forward. that should unite us in common cause. cutting the cost of the program, enhancing the quality of services provided. what a great mission for all of us to embark upon. so let's not play politics with the health care for tens of millions of people who are new to the system and for all of us who have been covered routinely by the system. we can do better than that. and let the lessons of social security and medicare, which have, as my colleagues indicated earlier, addressed the american public with dignity and improvement and enhancement and hope. the best commodity we can

deliver as government to her people. the representative -- representative garamendi, thank you for the opportunity to speak to these issues. the frankness that is required right now, the -- fradge -- the lack of theater would be improvement. no theater on this. let's settle for facts, not fiction, and working together to bring about what is a sound resolve that allows us to provide stability and success for the american public. that i don't think, is too much to -- that, i don't think, is too much to ask. so thank you for bringing us together. mr. garamendi: it is always a pleasure to be me to be on the floor with you. your passion, your knowledge, your ability to articulate with clarity in this case the importance of the social security program, medicare, as well as the affordable care act . you make a compelling argument. i want the public of america to really grasp, really the

importance of what is happening here in washington. yes, we're going to have a new president and there will be an inaugural and all of the celebration that goes with that . let me 's done, we -- put it this way. when that is done, there is a majority of the congress and the senate, together with the president, that fully intend to very on unraveling a critical safety net for more than 30 million americans and for everyone else that has insurance at every age, medicare all the way down, that has insurance, they will also see a dislocation and an unraveling of their insurance benefits. because this market could seriously unravel. as you said so clearly, the academic -- be academic, study

the facts, study the pros and the cons of a various -- of the various alternatives that are out there. i know, as an insurance commissioner and having been dealing in the issues of health care for many years now, that there are improvements needed in the affordable care act. there's no doubt. we've been saying that since shortly after it became law. and even when it became law. said, this should be done this way or that way, a little differently. we're eight years into this. and as you say, millions, tens of millions, actually, around 30 million directly involved, and benefiting from the program, either through the medicaid or through the exchanges or through the various benefits that are out there. so it's really, really important. i want to also pick up on something that ms. c.p.a. tur brought to our attention -- ms. kaptur brought to our attention. i'm going to put one more chart up here. little prised and a bit appalled. just before we broke for christmas, the new chairman of

the subcommittee in the ways and means committee that deals with social security introduced a piece of legislation. we looked at it, it was just before the christmas holidays and so i pucked -- picked it up and started looking at it and go, whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait, this is a major step to unravel the social security system. remember, back in the george w. bush administration, the first three years of his administration, he tried to privatize social security, failed miserably at that. thankfully he failed. congress wouldn't stand for it. they -- at least the democrats in congress wouldn't stand for it. and i see this piece of legislation introduced in the last session, in the last days, and i'm going, whoa, what does this mean? and this man becomes the chairman of the subcommittee that deals with social security and i'm going, oh, no.

they wouldn't. they wouldn't. -- they wouldn't go after social security again. but the bill does. and it does it in a way that, once again, gives enormous benefits to the wealthy and not so much for the others. this is a little chart about what happens if that piece of legislation by mr. johnson actually becomes law. these are the benefits that would be received today and in 10 years these would be the benefits. this is the top 10%, top 20%, rather, and then right here is the middle. so -- that's about a $3,000 a year reduction. keep in mind that i think well over 50% of the seniors in the united states depend upon social security as their principle source and in many cases their only source of income. so you get a decline. what do they want to do? they want to increase the age to 69. before you could apply for full

social security. they want to radically change the cost of living index. i know what i heard from my constituents, when there was no cost of living over the previous two years, and a very small one this last year, the cost of care for seniors continues to rise. because they're on the expensive side of things. and there are some other provisions in it. this is a wake-up call. his is a wake-up call. clearly the majority party here in the house and in the senate have promised to repeal the affordable care act, which we've talked about. they've also made it clear that in the past, and we believe in the months ahead, they will attempt to privatize a large portion of the medicare program. so medicaid will be largely

gutted. and the increases that we've seen through the medicaid program will be wiped out. the medicare program will have significant benefit reductions and if they intend to voucherize it, which they have talked about, then, as ms. kaptur said, they will throw the seniors to the mercy of the insurance companies. my basic point tonight was to aise the alarm and to begin to discuss here amongst our colleagues the reality of what s being planned for america. don't look at this as a partisan issue. republican, democrat. look at this as a personal issue. look at this as an issue that was given to me by a woman who is a farmer in the community i

represent, north of sacramento. who never had insurance. she was an entrepreneur, self-employed farmer. never had insurance. she needed care, she'd go to the emergency room. that worked when she was young and then she became a little older and -- cancer. unaffordable. couldn't possibly. she would go bankrupt. the affordable care act came along, with guaranteed coverage and an insurance policy through the exchange, covered california, that she could afford, that would provide her with unlimited medical services for the rest of her life. . no cap, no annual cap new york lifetime cap. she got her cancer treatment. she's moved along. she said, i still need care.

and if they repeal the affordable care act, i won't get it. and i'll die. that story is repeated across america. it's repeated in my district. i can give many more examples. so this really is, in her case and many others, a life or death situation. so yes, we'll be academic, as mr. tonko has said. we should be. we should understand the implications of one policy versus another. we should understand that the repeal of the affordable care act will start with you repealing a billion dollars of taxes will have a profound impact on health care in america. and the benefits will go to the wealthy. that's academic. but it's also this come. small farmer.

developed cancer. no hope. affordable care act comes along, she's able to get insurance. she's able to get the medical care, chemotherapy, necessary to save her life, she's back on the farm. repeal the affordable care act and this woman, along with millions of americans, are in serious jeparky di. so be aware of it. social security on the chopping block. medicare on the chopping block. the affordable care act on the chopping block. tax reductions for whom? well, mom and pop would get $130 a year. of the tax cuts. the billionaires in the trump administration would get $200,000 a year in tax cuts. and mom and pop, mom and pop

are likely to lose their insurance. ms. kapturring i see you've come back. mr. tonko, why don't you pick it up for a few moments, then we'll toss it to ms. kaptur and then carry on. mr. tonko: thank you, representative garamendi. as i hear you talk about public sentiment about social security, about the affordable care act, hearing the evidence you have provided from within your own district, from your constituents, it becomes very apparent where the american public is. when polled recently, only 20% of the american public is in support of efforts to repeal without replacement. 20%. so the great, great majority understands what's going on here. we've also seen during the recent campaign season which probably went a year and a half to two years long, a lot of talk about repealing the affordable care act. undoing the act.

at happened in the same time frame as 11.5 million people were added to the rolls in -- for 2017. so there is an appeal here that is drawing the american public toward the coverage provided by a.c.a. so the sentiment here is to get things done. and provide, again, the stability. i'm also co-sponsor of legislation entitled strengthening social security act that would improve how we calculate the benefits for social security. we're not advancing reducing those benefits or raising the retirement age to 69 or whatever level. we're talking about enhancing benefits. and you know, when you talk to seniors, they'll say, we either got nothing or we got just a bit of an increase that was

taken away with the other hand for some other purpose. so yes, we need to revisit just how we give that green light to a cola adjustment. and we need to calculate that approval with items that are truly essential for the senior citizens. not big screen tv's or certain items out there that are adding to a luxurious note rather than one that speaks toer that basic core need to live day-to-day. and so the strengthening social security act does just that. it takes into account all of the essentials in that calculus that will determine whether or not a cola adjustment is given that given year. so that is important. i also believe that it's time for taos look at that cap that we've created, that we've placed on contributions to social security. some people, by february 12, or

14th, whatever it is, i forget the exact date in february, are done paying. they're done contributing at that point in the year. well, you know, the standards 118,000 or 127,000 are just capturing again most of those revenue the hard shitch is placed on the working, middle income community. or those in the community looking to ascend the middle class. but there could be a far greater contribution from other income strata that we ought to look at to provide, again, stability. i think a point needs to be made too that medicare, medicaid, the affordable care act are all intertwined. there were strengtheners provided for these programs. there was a partnership of revenue stream that was calculated and assumed, that again provides for the quality of response to the consuming public.

and especially those in senior year. we all know, i have a large percentage of senior citizens in the makeup of my constituency. and it's important to recognize that many who are on medicare end up getting medicaid assistance because of situations that are called upon, where they're perhaps placed in nursing homes, adult homes or the like. so we have to be cognizant here on the public sentiment. where is their thinking? we know exactly what they want. they want stability for these programs. they want strengthening of the programs, they want to make certain that all of these efforts that have lasted for decades or been introduced as late as 2010 will continue so that again they can have a future that is that more secure. that more certain. and so tonight we talk about, and we implore our colleagues,

to please help improve the affordable care act. let's not repeal and certainly do not repeal without a replacement plan. that's a disaster that will really cause havoc in the marketplace. it's one that doesn't prove to be actuaryly sound. and also let's make certain we don't have these efforts again to voucherize med kay, to privatize social security, these are programs that have provided stability. when i came into the house in 2009, it was at the lowest point of the recession. which president obama was handed in his entering into the presidency. 700,000, 800,000, 900,000 jobs lost a month in that deepest, darkest moment of the recession. and what did we see? individuals who took their lifetime's worth of savings and

entrusted them to a marketplace , lost everything for which they had ever worked, and others realized they didn't lose a single cent of social security. therein lies a tremendous bit of testimony as to the meritorious achievements of a social security system. one that provided that safety net for all families. one that made certain there was some sort of continuous flow, a backup, a reinforcement, as you went into retirement years. and we're reminded, aren't we, of medicare. what the results were for retirees. how long they were expected to live. what their quality of life was like. and it was tremendously, favorably turned around. with the benefits of medicare.

so with an impassioned plea, i encourage this house, the senate, to do the right thing. stand for the american public. allow them to be addressed with dignity with these programs that have proven themselves and where there's a need to further assist, as there has been time and time and time again with social security, as there has been time and time again with medicare, let's treat that same -- provide that same approach to the affordable care act. so thank you again for bringing us together. to be able to share our thoughts and sentiments and share our advocacy to do the right thing. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, thank you so very much as always. it's a pleasure and a learning experience for me to be on the floor with you. i gather information and knowledge from you.

i notice that ms. kaptur has returned from a brief telephone call, i believe. thank you so very much for joining us. we're about to wrap up, so if you'll wrap it up and then i'll close us down in just a few moments as we're almost out of time. ms. kaptur: i'll be very brief. it's an honor to join you and congressman tonko. i just wanted to place on the record, since both of you talked so eloquently about the affordable care act. i'm sure you have had this experience, as have i, i'm sure all our colleagues have had this, even if they didn't support the affordable care act, you're at a parade or public event and someone will break through the crowd and run toward you, i'm thinking of a particular woman who came up to me in one of my smaller communities in tears, in the summertime, and she has cerebral palsy and she never was able to get care.

and i don't know why she didn't qualify for insurance, i don't know all of that. she just hugged me and thanked me and then around the concerner from where we live, there's a little produce market that i go in all the time, i'm friends with the people who work there, and one of the women, one of the women there, because this little business couldn't afford insurance, so their employees when the affordable care act passed went to the private marketplace to get a plan so this particular woman who works long hour, lost her husband to cancer, told me, marcy, why are people complaining about the affordable care act? guess what, now i have cancer. and she said, i'm able to go, i was able to go and get all the tests and now they've got me on chemotherapy. and i said, you? and so with cancer, this woman is working. and with only -- was only able to get insurance through the affordable care act. multiply that by 10,000,

20,000, a million, 20 million, wherever the number is now. think about the number of people in our country who are without insurance. i just -- sometimes i'm speechless when i meet these ship zens because i'm thinking -- these citizens, because i'm think, where were you hiding before? where were you? they never even -- one woman, another place i went, she was mixing up, she said, i have health insurance, right, i pay car insurance. i said, no, car insurance doesn't cover health insurance. people sometimes don't act in their own self-interest. and she didn't even know that because she had auto insurance that didn't cover health insurance. can you believe that? so she was in a job where, with the affordable care act, she could go to the exchange and buy a plan and be able to take care of herself in a better way. it was amazing to me some of the things that have happened and how i see the affordable care act off to a very good

start. i agree with congressman tonko, don't just repeal it until you have something to replace it with. you can't pull the rug out from under these people's lives. you cannot do that. it would be unconscionable to do that. we have several christian, several other denominations in this house. it would be very unchristian to do that, for those who are christians. for those who are other denominations, pick your denomination. i just think it would be so cruel. so i thank the gentleman for allowing taos speak out this evening on behalf of citizens who can't speak for themses here and to try to help perfect what we as a republic can do for our citizenry. yield back. mr. garamendi: thank you very much. mr. tonko: mr. garamendi, if i might, listening to ms. kaptur talk about her interactions with constituents, i had a

similar experience, one of the ost cherished parts of the affordable care act is pre-existing conditions. being a woman, being a woman who was pregnant, being a man or woman with cancer, made that difficult. people being wheeled into surgery and being told that they were discontinuing their plan. so these are elements of the affordable care act that could be at risk if we start playing around with the actuarial balance that's been achieved. and pre-existing conditions, they rank right up there as one of the biggest concerns people have about repeal. ms. kaptur: would the gentleman yields on that point, another woman came up to me, i was at the medical hospital with my brother and she has epilepsy. and she has another condition, and she told me she said, you know, marcy, i have to cut my pills in half, can you help me try to find pills so that i can

afford to pay for all the medicines i need to take care of myself. rather than repealing, can't we find a majority of republicans to help us, help our citizens be able to get medicine at prices they can afford? why can't we have competitive bidding for pharmaceuticals? why can't we have that? we have it for the v.a., for the department of defense, why can't we have it for the rest of our citizenry so we can get the best price. i thought, cutting your pills in half. so what happens to her, if she doesn't take enough of the medicine she has a seizure. but she's got other things wrong with her, so she's trying to cut this pill and that bill. it's crazy. crazy. can't we do better as a country than this for our people? i've never understood why the bright of -- price of pharmaceuticals has shot up so much. i can't tell you how many cases we get in our office, where we have to call these companies and beg, you know, do you have some foundation where we can

get a few more pills for lily or this company and that company in order to help people in our district. it shouldn't be our job to turn into a medical dispensery because the system isn't working. there ought to be a way to take care of this. mr. garamendi: as we look at his issue, this conversation puts before us and the american people really two paths to travel. the president recently said, we're going to repeal obamacare. and it will be great. and our republican colleagues have bought into that and are now processing legislation to do that. and the discussion today, from my two colleagues here, indicates another path and that is, make it better. make the affordable care act better. the drug issue. there's no reason in the world that the pharmaceutical companies should be prevented

from price competition. they are, it's the law of the land that prevents the government and other purchasers , the government, from negotiating prices. that's a law that can be changed. there are many things that we could do to improve the health care of america. but two paths. one, working together to improve the affordable care act and medicare and medicaid and the veterans administration, the programs that provide the health care and the insurance for america. or another one, a path that is going to be extraordinarily destructive. the repeal of the affordable care act, which is already under way in the senate and will soon be over here in the house, promises americans, not just the 30 million that have insurance, but all americans with a very serious health problem in the future. final comments and then we'll be out of time. mr. tonko: just a quick

comment. we talked about it much here this evening, he joined you a bit as you -- after you started. i don't know if you mentioned the hospital situation. but, representing a number of hospitals from stand-alone clinics to some very, you know, specific specialty type of health centers, they're all concerned about the impact of repeal. and certainly being a major employer, if not the major employer in some of my counties, you know, as you reduce that care, you're reducing the work force. so now we're creating another impact. it's why the ripple effect of repeal is so strong and devastating. mr. garamendi: thank you so very much. we are out of time. thank you so very much for joining us. ms. kaptur from ohio, mr. tonko from new york. i thank you so very much for this. and i can assure you, we will be back. thank you. ms. kaptur: thank you, congressman garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is on the motion

-- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i rise to move that the house do adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 am tomorrow -- announcer: the house today approved a bill that gives small andnesses access to capital allows reimbursement for travel services. midnight they discuss regulations issued at the end of a new president is inaugurated. house coverage right here on c-span. the a twi t