agriculture subsidies, and custom were control are not exempt. perhaps it is the article you have seen from the aarp. beth, hello. caller: good morning. is -- oneted to say thing you keep. about is republican -- the republican agenda. how many republicans know what the propaganda is? the trump -- the trump agenda is? the trump agenda is about taking care of the bridge. if they want -- the rich. if they want to take charge, why. they find an infrastructure anwhy don't they fund infrastructure bill? to leave it there.

sorry for the abrupt end. the house is coming in early today for their legislative session. we will bring you there now for our live gavel to gavel coverage. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. lfing god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as we face a new day, help us to discover power of resting in you. send your spirit down upon the members of the people's house. grant them wisdom, insight, and vision that the work they do will be for the betterment of our nation and help them to identify and bring to pass policies that will redown to of our children and

grandchildren. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? grandchildren. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed will vote no. the ayes have t the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. newhouse: i object to the vote on the ground a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the ledge ledge will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. mr. thompson: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in honor of pulmonary hypertension awareness month. hard to believe that just over 20 years ago so many patients were given less than three years to live. and no treatment options. today there are 14 f.d.a.-approved treatment for patients with this rare condition and they continue to live longer. i'm proud of the work of the pulmonary hypertension association over the past decade and a half, their volunteers and leadership, and i'm glad to be a small part of it. my inspiration was a 5-year-old patient named emily. the daughter of my dear friend jack, and thanks to medical advancements, emily graduated

from vanderbilt university and leading an amazing life. i encourage my colleagues to continue to support critical research efforts to improve the lives of our patients. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition sn without objection, so ordered. >> i rise in honor of native son of baltimore, maryland, mr. reginald lewis. cummings: let me also acknowledge the presence of many of the lewis family members in the gallery. including his mother, cummings:. his widow, daughter, and brother. november 30 to december 1, 1987, 30 years ago, mr. lewis $985 million leverage buyout of international foods.

at the time it was the largest leverage buyout of an american company overseas assets and led to the creation of what "the ew york times" identified in 1993 as the largest corporation in the united states led by a african-american. mr. lewis accomplishments changed the face of american usiness forever. and and opened new doors of opportunity on wall street. this substantial philanthropic gifts have also continued to benefit baltimore and the nation. they help young americans of color to dream bigger, and in on ' own words, to keep going no matter what. i invite everyone to join me in celebrating and honoring reginald lewis' memory, an extraordinary accomplishments. with that, on mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. lance: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize an important athletic achievement in new jersey's mr. speaker, i seventh district. the north hunterton high school women's cross-country team won the state meet of champions. they are an historic and distinguished program. state seven cross-country championships over the years. state cross-country championships over the years. i comment these young women on their athletic achievement. i can only imagine how proud their parents and families must be. it is encouraging that the hard work of these young women has been rewarded with success. their perseverance and commitment should be commended. i also express my heartfelt congratulations to their coach, sean walsh. coach walsh steadfast leadership, the north hunterton women's cross-country team was able to realize its full athletic potential and these young women are distinguished academically as well. congratulations to all who were involved. thank you, mr. speaker.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair notes a kiss turnance in the gallery in contravention of law and rules of the house. the sergeant of arms will remove those responsible for the disturbance and restore and maintain order in the gallery. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california eek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, last week the f.c.c. chairman circulated his plan to extinguished most important technological achievement in modern history, the free and open internet. ms. eshoo: his plan guts the 2015 open internet rules and removes the f.c.c. as the cop on the beat to protect consumers online. without protections against blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization, there will be nothing to stop i.s.p.'s from slowing or blocking a website or charging consumers more to

access certain content. it would allow i.s.p.'s to pick winners and losers by changing -- charging small businesses tolls to reach potential customers online and they'll be able to control the flow of information on the internet. millions of americans cheered for the 2015 rules to protect the open internet. rules that have been upheld by the courts. with those rules in place, i.s.p.'s have been less likely to mess with content. meanwhile, investment in the online ecosystem continues to grow with innovative new apps and more build out of broadband. i stand here in opposition to the chairman's plan. i urge my colleagues to do the same. the internet belongs to all of i.s.p.'s. the big the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. newhouse: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for i.s the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. minute. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize eriff harvey jesdall for his significant contributions to the safety of the constituents n the fourth district and to congratulate him on his recently announced retirement. he has served in the washington state law enforcement for over 30 years. he began his career in 1985 at the garfield county sheriff's office. and he spent eight years in the bellevue police department before landing in douglas county in 1995. he was promoted to sergeant in 2000 and elected to his current position in 2006. additionally, he served in the reserve for 26 years where he was activated four times, including two tours in the middle east. for the last 22 years, he has been promoting reserve for safe relationships

in central washington. i'm thankful for his leadership and compassion and i urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating him relationship in on a successful career. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today nine million children are at risk of losing their access to health care and millions of parents losing sleep. as funding for the children's health insurance program expires. community health senters across the country are at risk of steep cuts, forcing them to lay off medical professionals and patients thousands of as their funding expires. mr. at that cana: dreamers who -- dreamers who know no other home than america are at risk of deportation as their daca status expires. mr. takano: military families who serve a nation at war are at risk of going without pay at

government funding expires. but instead of passing legislation to ensure children have access to health care, to as their funding expires. mr. keep community health centers to protect our dreamers and to support military families, the majority is too cutting taxes for t our the wealthiest individuals in america. this is a shameful cutting taxe failure to act in the best interest of the american people. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker. today kicks off international human rights month. a celebration of the unalienable rights which everyone is entitled. this coming year marks the 70th anniversary of the date the universal declaration of human rights was adopted by the united nations, a document which has been translated into

languages.00 this week we exam the perils of human trafficing in which at its core a violation of fundamental human rights and far too prevalent around the globe. of the ir, vice chair international religious freedom caucus, i'm saddened by the atrocities occurring around the of all which people faiths are of all faiths are persecuted. we cannot turn a blind eye to injustice. america must remain a beacon of principleled courage, recognizing and promoting the basic human rights of all people. if we remain silent in the face of these transgressions, we neglect that moral imperative and do so at the peril of civil society. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the

gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> from california to snorge and everywhere in between, the republican tax scam steals from working class families to give the top 1% and large a massive tax break. the republican plan eliminates deductions like state and local taxes, mortgage interest rates, medical expenses, and student loan interests that working families rely on. this bill will only increase income inequality in our country where the rich get richer and those in the middle class and those struggling to get into the middle class are left further and further behind. i can't believe anyone would vote for such a bill. either you don't know -- you know what's in it and don't care about the consequences of your vote. or you don't and you'll still vote for it. i don't know which is worse.

to republicans that care about the deficit only when kems are in power, you have lost all credibility when it comes to this issue. i hope the american people will remember who voted for this bill. i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, this week i had the opportunity to meet with a number of organic farmers to discuss the upcoming farm bill and impact on organic production. recent years organic production has continued to grow in pennsylvania, pennsylvania being the second largest state for organic production, and many other states. there are a number of programs authorized in the farm bill, including beginning farmers and ranchers that help provide financial assistance and planning assistance for new farmers and farms. access to programs like this is essential to support the next

generation of farmers and growing agriculture. as it relates to organic it contains numerous provisions. this includes conservation assistance through equip organic initiative. organic agricultural research and extension, competitive grants. he house report clule -- the horticultural title includes the organic program and check off program. supporting agriculture of all forms through the farm bill is critically important for the industry, rural communities, and quite frankly, all americans. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> congress must act to help our veterans exposed to burn pits and must act now. mr. ruiz: in iraq and afghanistan, americans used

exposing our men and women to e a vote on h.r. 1279, help exposing our men and women in uniform to toxic carcinogens in the air and veterans exposed to toxic burn pit act that i support and co-sponsored. this will create a certainty of excellence within the v.a. that will help diagnose, treat, and rehabilitate veterans who were exposed. veterans will be served by staff with specialty expertise needed to address the kinds of those exposed ns veterans now suffer. this bill also directs the v.a. and d.o.d. to establish a program to train their health providers to treat veterans exposed and to study the long-term effects of exposure. so i urge all of my colleagues to support this critical bill and bring it to a vote immediately to help save our veterans' lives. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 635, i call up h.r. 1699, the preserving access to manufactured housing act of 2017, and i ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 308, h.r. 1699, a bill to amend the truth in lending act to modify the definitions of a mortgage originator and a high-cost mortgage, to amend the secure and fair enforcement for mortgage licensing act of 2008 to modify the definition , and for originator other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 635, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 115-42 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divide and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. the gentleman from texas, mr.

hensarling, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and submit remarks extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, today i rise in strong support of h.r. 1699, the preserving access to manufactured housing act. it's an important bill that is co-sponsored by a bipartisan -- i repeat -- bipartisan group of members, and it was approved by the financial services committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 42-18. in fact, this proposal has a long track record of bipartisan support with a similar bill having passed the last congress with votes from both republicans and democrats. i want to thank my colleague, representative barr, the chairman of on monetary policy and trade subcommittee, for his

leadership in introducing this legislation, and for leading congressional efforts to help americans, particularly those of lower and moderate incomes, to help them achieve a greater level of financial independence and being able to achieve their american dream of homeownership. here's the problem, mr. speaker. under the cfpb's regulations, many small balance manufactured home loans are now being considered, quote-unquote, high cost. this means that many people, particularly those with lower and moderate incomes, who want to buy a manufactured home aren't able to buy that home. their access to credit is being unfairly restricted through no fault of their own. lenders are leaving the market. five city credit union in maine, z credit union in new mexico, manhattan community bank in montana, and the list goes on and on and on.

lenders are leaving the market. as we know, many, many consumers who live in rural areas, including those in the fifth district of texas that i have the pleasure and honor of representing, they just don't have access to rental options or other affordable housing. and so the cfpb rules are unfairly penalizing rural residents and working families, many of whom happen to be retirees, single moms, working families, veterans, and they simply want to buy a manufactured home that they can live in and they're being denied that opportunity. so here in washington inside the very elite beltway bubble, there is simply not an appreciation for manufactured housing and the role that plays in our vital affordable housing component. but let's listen to what the american people tell us outside of the beltway. a 75-year-old retiree from

pleasant prairie, wisconsin, said he purchased a manufactured home because it was, quote, it was affordable and in a desirable location. a 57-year-old single mom from albuquerque, new mexico, purchased a manufactured home. she said, quote, it provided the best value for the money. there were no other housing options available. i searched for over a year to find affordable housing. all of the site built homes in the area were over $100,000, which was out of my price range. manufactured housing is within the price range of many working americans. a 28-year-old single mom of two from ohio, she'd been renting, she wanted her own home. when she purchased because she, quote, found this and allowed us to own a home for less than what we would have to pay to rent another. stories like this are commonplace all over america, mr. speaker, and it's why it's so important that we recognize the rights of our fellow

citizens to give them the opportunity of affordable housing. you can't protect consumers by protecting them out of their homes. manufactured housing is affordable housing. so we have a regulation from an agency that's supposed to be protecting consumers but instead it is preventing families from purchasing affordable housing. we must change that. so we have to pass this bipartisan bill, h.r. 1699, with just a few minor clarifications to the definition of mortgage originator, loan originator and high cost mortgage, this bill will ensure that consumers of small balance mortgage loans have access to the mortgage credit they need. these minor technical clarifications will help preserve consumer choice and financesing options for -- financing options for those seeking to buy a manufactured home. some on the other side of the aisle will say this eviscerates

certain consumer protections. well, number one, loans under this bill will still be covered by the truth in lending act, the fair housing act, the ability to repay rules, equal credit opportunity act, and all the consumer protection laws passed by various states. let's support working americans. let's support affordable housing. let's support mr. barr's h.r. 1699. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from texas -- california -- sorry, is recognized. ms. waters: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 1699, which would undermine the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act and eliminate consumer protections for some of the country's most vulnerable borrowers. mr. chairman, the title of this bill paints it as a measure

that purports to preserve access to manufactured housing. so i want to be very clear about what this bill is and is -- what it is not about. and who will win and who will be harmed if this bill is signed into law. this isn't about regulatory burdens, reducing access to credit. the lending volume in the manufactured housing industry has gotten back to where it was before the consumer financial protection bureau put new regulations in place. this isn't about credit unions and community banks not being able to enter the manufactured housing market. many credit unions already underwrite mortgage loans and loans for manufactured housing, t what h.r. 1699 is about is one-stop shop megainstitutions like clayton homes, owned by

billionaire warren buft -- buffett, which is almost half of the share of manufactured housing. his manufactured housing empire profits in every imaginable way in this sector. producing the housing, to selling the housing, to originating the loans that take advantage of vulnerable customers and leave them with virtually no way to refinance. this bill makes it easier for financial titans like billionaire warren buffett to earn even more profits at the expense of some of the most vulnerable -- some of the most vulnerable consumers in this country. i show this ad because they would have you believe that clayton homes is separate from all of the other -- other entities that they have under

clayton homes. one would think that simply clayton homes is the seller of these mortgages, but they are under a different name. they are under vanderbilt. they are under home first. they are under benjamin moore. and they are under oak wood homes. and so sometimes people think perhaps they are not getting the kind of service that they want when they're looking for a mortgage that they will go to some other place other than clayton but they end up literally going to other entities owned by clayton homes. and so this is a warren buffett bill. this is a clayton bill, and to tell you the truth, this institution is not in the business of originating legislation for one particular business, and this is what this is all about. and i'll show you how they do it. they have different names on their operations but their ads

all look the same. we will beat the match. we will beat the match. same ads for true value and the other entities owned by them that they all belong to warren buffett and clayton. and so this bill, again, would harm manufactured housing consumers who are typically more vulnerable than the average homeowner. they are low-income buyers, rural buyers, minority buyers, and reports from consumer financial protection bureau, the manufactured housing industry and the center for public integrity have all shown us that this measure will not create access to affordable housing but would instead allow an incredibly profitable industry to make even more money at the expense of low-income and rural homeowners. even if the industry itself asserts that it has been growing and highly profitable, even if the years after dodd-frank and the consumer

bureau's mortgage protections have been in place. so let's take a look at this. if you take a look back what was happening in 2003 where they had 18% share in the market, now they have 39%. this is all clayton. 39%. portfolio includes bout $12.5 billion in cus -- customers. and so i would like to just reiterate again that this is about warren buffett and this is about clayton. let me just share with you that berkshire hathway chairman warren buffett has been touting its post the profitability of manufactured housing. highly is berkshire's

profitable subsidy and it earned $744 million in 2016. a 33% over 2014. yes, that's 33% increase after the dodd-frank act rules were in place. unfortunately, this is the same clayton homes that was the subject of a multipart "seattle times" and center for public integrity joint investigation. mr. chairman and members, the "seattle times" did a scathing series on clayton, and so i would like to enter without objection these articles into the record that basically are the articles that were done by the "seattle times." everyone should avail themselves of this damaging information. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. waters: the investigation found that clayton locked one disabled veteran in tennessee,

dorothy mansfield into an expensive loan even though the required monthly payment would leave her with $27 to cover the rest of her monthly living cost. it was a no documentation loan meaning no one bothered to verify dorothy's income. the investigation also found that clayton homes in-house lender, vanderbilt mortgage, charged minority borrowers substantially higher rates on average than their white counterparts. unfortunately, this appears not to have been an isolated incident as federal data reveals that vanderbilt mortgage typically has charged african-american borrowers who make more than $75,000 a year more than white people who make only $35,000 a year. other clayton home borrowers were quoted inexpensive loan terms only to see interest and fees skyrocket once they had put down a nonrefundable

deposit or paid out large amounts of money to prepare their land for installation of the manufactured home. just like subprime mortgage loans, borrowers who were preyed on before the financial crisis, many consumers who purchased manufactured housing were convinced to take out high-cost loans based on false promises that they would be able to refinance to lower rates in the future. former clayton home sales people have confirmed that they have pressured customers to use clayton-affiliated financing even if it wasn't the best deal, and some even received kickbacks for putting customers into more expensive loans. under this bill, some of our most important consumer protection laws that prevent this kind of steering, like truth and lending act, the secure fair enforcement for mortgage licensing act, and the homeownership and equity protection act would no longer

apply to manufactured housing, retailers and sales people that offer credit to borrowers. even if those sales people do the same things traditional loan originators do like referring customers to a creditor or assisting them in applying for credit. so if enacted, h.r. 1699 would allow abusive lenders to charge over 14% interest before consumer protections are triggered. more than four times what the average borrower is paying on a home loan. in the coming years, this number could very well grow to 16%, 17%, likely 18% as interest rates rise back to normal. . even worse the bill makes it legal for clayton homes salesperson nell to steer borrowers toward high cost loans. loans from other part of the clayton conglomerate not in

their best trfment a practice that congress banned for all loan originators after the financial crisis. mr. chairman, when it comes to manufactured housing, consumers are already exposed to significant risk. high interest rates. the inability to refinance. and in many cases, depreciation that starts as soon as the manufactured home is sold. nevertheless, the house is considering a bill that rolls back key protections for these already financially vulnerable consumers. it would do away with a number of protections current law attaches to many high cost loans that's for stiffer penalties. additional disclosures for investors and consumers that purchase high cost mortgages. mandatory counseling so that borrowers know what they are getting into. and even the ability for borrowers to have their loan rescinded if lenders don't follow the law. would do away with all of

this. consumer bureau noted in its study of the manufactured housing industry, individuals who apply for manufactured housing loans, quote, include c its study of the manufactured customers that may be considered more financially vulnerable and thus may particularly stand to benefit from strong consumer protections, quote-unquote. in addition to the consumer bureau's report, investigative reporting has provided names and stories of individuals who have fallen victim to the market practices and policies described by the consumer bureau. finally, when a nearly identical measure was considered by the house last term, as h.r. 650, the obama administration issued a veto threat and said they, quote, strongly oppose, quote-unquote, the bill because it would, quote, put low-income and economically vulnerable consumers at significant risk to predatory cted

lending and being steered into more expensive loans even when they qualify for lower cost to alternates, quote-unquote. this bill by consumer protections omits evidence that the manufactured housing industry needs more oversight. and is at its heart a dangerous giveaway to a sector that already profits hand somely at the expense of vulnerable borrowers. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rip-off bill. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, before the morning is over i hope toe have some additional time to yield to the ranking member so she could continue her diatribe against president billionaire te and democrat finance billionair and democrat finance year, warren buffett. until then i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, the sponsor of the legislation, and the chairman of the financial services subcommittee on monetary policy and trade, mr. barr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. barr: thank you, mr.

chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 169 , the preserving access to manufactured housing act. home othership for many is part of the american dream, but overbroad burdensome regulations arising out of the dodd-frank financial control law are limiting the ability of americans to realize that dream. a one size fits all regulation by the cfpb makes it harder for lenders to offer mortgages to hardworking americans who simply want to buy a by manufactured home. by expanding the range of loan products considered, quote high cost, under the homeownership and equity protection act, the cfpb has failed to recognize the unique nature of manufactured housing loans. due to the increased legal liabilities and staying stig ma associated with making these so-called high cost mortgages, many lenders have simply stopped making these loans altogether. in fact, according to the government's own home mortgage disclosure act data, origination of manufactured housing loans of $75,000 or less has plummeted by 22% since

this regulation went into effect. this data clearly show that there is a negative impact of these federal rules on the availability of credit for manufactured homes. while virtually all mortgage segments have been growing in the last few years, data clearly shows continued declines in small dollar loans for manufactured homes. as a result, this regulation is harming low and moderate income families, particularly in rural areas, and existing homeowners are harmed because they will not be able to sell their homes. these regulations are hitting americans in rural areas of modest means the most. take for example the hospital worker in kentucky. yes, mr. speaker, this is about the hospital worker in kentucky not warren buffett. this hospital worker applied for a loan of $38,500 to finance a manufactured home. and 8% down payment. his monthly income was $2,200. plenty to cover the all-in

housing costs of $670 per month. the payment he would have been investing in his own home would have been less than what he was spending on rent. but he couldn't get financing. he contacted his local banks and credit unions, but they no longer financed manufactured homes. this is not about warren buffett. this is about helping low-income americans achieve the american dream. and the reasons for this crippling rack of credit, unaccountable, unelect the bureaucrats in washington, financial e consumer protection bureau. and their, quote, high financia protection bureau. and their, quote, high cost loan regulations and definitions of mortgage originator and loan originator established in the dodd-frank act. these regulations fail to take into account the unique circumstances associated with manufactured housing. and the fixed costs associated with the purchase of any home, large or small. they fail to recognize the simple mathematical fact that fixed costs on smaller loans translate into higher

percentages of the total loan. they fail to recognize that even if interest payments on manufactured homes are more than your average home, the payments are still more affordable than the all in cost of a site built home or rent in many markets. this is especially the case when you consider that purchasing a manufactured home as owe possed to renting allows these owners to build equity, leading to financial stability for their families. this bipartisan bill, the preserving access to manufactured housing act, recognizes the unique nature of manufactured housing. something that bureaucrats in washington don't know anything about. they don't know anything about what goes on in rural america. and this fixes, these government cost problems by modifying the definition of loan originators and mortgage originators to exclude the manufactured housing retailers and sellers from the definition of a loan or mortgage originator so long as they are own receiving compensation for the sale of the home and not engaged in loan official.

the legislation also increases the thresholds for high cost loans to accommodate manufactured home purchases of up to $75,000 -- 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barr: thank you. it accommodates manufactured home purchases of up to $75,000 while retaining the tough restrictions on lenders to prevent any borrowers from being taken advantage of. that's right. this preserves those consumer protections. as members of congress, we ever an obligation to protect the american people from regulations that harm their ability to purchase an affordable home for themselves and their families. we need to end government policies under the guise of consumer protection that are actually protecting americans right out of homeownership. it's not consumer protection, mr. speaker, when you deny people affordable housing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. barr: thank you to the chairman for his leadership. i applaud both democrats and republicans who support this commonsense solution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. chairman and members. what you just heard was a description of what some who represent some of these rural communities are doing for them are not doing for them. they say vulnerable consumer, you can have a loan at 18%. we know you can't afford it and we'll just come and repossess your manufactured housing when you can't pay. and further chairman, will i take all the time you will yield to me to continue this discussion and let people know exactly what's going on. i now yield five minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, a true progressive champion and senior member of the financial services committee, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: i thank the gentlelady for the time. mr. speaker, i come to this conversation based on people i know who live in manufactured housing. a loft folks call it mobile homes, trailer parks. we call it manufactured

housing. but i have walked those places, sit in those rooms, and just been with my neighbors and friends and constituents who live in manufactured housing. i appreciate them tremendously. they are wonderful folk. and they, the folks i know, are just part of that 17 million people who live in manufactured housing. if you got rid of manufactured housing, the national homeownership rate would fall about 6%. so manufactured housing no doubt is important and is an affordable alternative for many people. that doesn't mean you can rip them off. that doesn't mean you can pick their pockets. and that doesn't mean that you can let some big monopoly reach in their pockets and take their money away from them. just because the loan payment on a manufactured housing might be lower than rent, doesn't mean you get to up the skim.

you still got to be fair to people. look, for folks who are watching this debate it's important to understand what we're really talking about. i'm going to boil it down as best i can. we're saying that if you live manufactured housing and if the loan is going to be extra high, and the interest rate, like -- like the interest rate is 6 1/2 or 8 1/2 above the annual percentage rate which could bring you as high as the ranking member said, 18%, then certain things kick in for you. if they are going to charge you that kind of interest rate, the law says we're going to look out for you by saying that the lender has to explain the consequences of default. it will ruin your credit. that the lender has to disclose the loan terms in the monthly payments. that the lender has to ensure that the borrower receives homeownership counseling. and, this is really important,

under another regulation, the lender is forbidden from being the dealer and steering that person to a lender. in the case of clayton homes, they sell the unit and give you the loan. they'll say you know what, we'll sell you a nice new unit here, don't worry about where to look for a loan, we got you covered. we're in that business. they are a monopoly. and what is happening here, folks, is that all those otections that a high cost loan borrower is about to face, this legislation takes away. that's all we're talking about here. we're saying that if you're going to get a high cost loan, you should get certain protections. you should get information. you should get counseling. people should tell you what's going to happen if you default.

and they are saying, hey, man, that's getting in the way of my money. we don't want you telling them what their rights are because that's interfering with the millions and millions and millions that we're going to get off of them. for b consumer works out or monopoly just fine. a smart one not so much. that's what this is all with. -- all about. i want to say giving my friends on the other side of the aisle the best of intentions, that we do have a philosophical debate here. we believe that the problem, if there is one, of people lending in this market is not that there are consumer protections, t it is that there is a huge monopoly. you want to fix the problem of manufactured housing lending, break up that monopoly. you want to get more entrance into the market and get some competition in price, make up

the monopoly. if you just tell the monopoly, you can charge these people more, now, you don't have to give them the protections, you don't have to inform them, you can steer them, and you got to get a really high cost loan before they get any protections, then all that's going to do is benefit the firm that is already occupying this market space, the firm that already sells the unit and gives the loans. the one that has all the advertising set up. the one that has all the sales force set up. the one that has all the up.astructure already set the monopolists will be the one who will benefit from this legislation. the theory behind this law is that if you -- the consumer protection laws that have caused at some point -- the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: the theory is consumer protection is why you have seen some entrance -- some lenders not be in this space. our knowledge and our facts indicate that it's because you got a big giant monster that controls the whole market. if you want to do something for manufactured housing residents, we can do it now. we urge you to vote no on this piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves -- the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from missouri, the chairman of the financial services subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer credit, mr. luetkemeyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, for his continued commitment to issues surrounding the availability of affordable manufactured housing. he's been a patient champion on this and many other issues that impact americans seeking access to mortgage financing.

legislation we consider today amends the truth in lending act to specify a retailer of a manufactured housing is not a mortgage originator subject to requirements under that act. similarly the bill specifies such a retailer is generally not a loan originator. what do you mean with regard to these technical concerns? they mean that more people in missouri and kentucky and every other state will have access to manufactured housing. certain regulations stemming from dodd-frank constricted credit for manufactured homes. this legislation would help consumers restore access to financing that's currently blocked. if you want more access to credit, if you want more competition, you need to support this because what's happened is the rules and regulations have constricted the ability of banks and credit unions to be able to make these kinds of loans. housing options in rural america aren't necessarily the same as those offered in other parts of the nation. our rural communities can face a severely limited affordable housing stock, making availability of and financing for manufactured housing all the more important. that may not be significant to

every member of this body, but it's certainly important to me and my constituents who roughly 10% of live in manufactured housing. it's important to the more than 20 million americans living in manufactured housing today, and the many americans who turn -- who will turn to manufactured housing to fulfill their housing needs. as someone who -- my first home was a manufactured home, i can tell you this is extremely important to lots and lots of people in my communities in my district. some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested this legislation will dilute consumer protections. in reality, this bill maintains consumer protections. h.r. 1699 allows, for example, continued cfpb oversight of manufactured housing loans, requires that consumer be provided with the full litany of disclosure requirements and maintains pay requirements established in dodd-frank. the idea this legislation guts consumer protections, mr. speaker, is simply not true. there's also been the charge this would help retailers help

mortgage originators. that is not true. if a retailer is compensated for acting as a mortgage originator, the legal requirements that apply to other mortgage originators will still apply to them after passage of this bill. manufactured housing provides not just housing alternative but an opportunity for individuals and families to become homeowners. this legislation ensures manufactured housing remains available and affordable without eroding important consumer protections. again, i want to thank the gentleman from kentucky and urge my colleagues to support this important measure. thank you, mr. speaker, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, a member of the financial services committee, mrs. beatty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. beatty: thank you, mr. speaker, and certainly let me thank my ranking member, congresswoman waters, for standing up for consumers.

and as i stand here today, first, let me just say i echo all of the comments of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and i, too, rise in opposition of h.r. 1699, a bill that would put the lowest income and most vulnerable consumers at risk of becoming victims of predatory lending. this bill would increase the chances of consumers being steered into higher cost loans when they could otherwise qualify for lower cost alternatives. now, as aside, it's quite interesting to listen to my colleagues on the other side have such great interest in affordable housing and low -income residents and, yet, as i have sat on the financial services committee and watched them repeatedly cut funds to the budget for low income, not

stand up for some of the statements when former director richard chord ray came in touk -- chordray came in to talk about consumer financial bureau and trying to stamp out this predatory lending. i would be remiss to not mention that last week president trump appointed the director of the office of management and budget, mick mulvaney, to lead the bureau and yet the same man who spent years trying to eliminate this organization, a man that did ot stand up for low-income for affordable housing. so i'd like to end by saying i think we need someone who could stand up for consumers, and i'm pleased to hear my colleagues say they believe in consumer protection and that they're going to advocate for low income and they are going to stand up against predatory lending. so it's --

the speaker pro tempore: time has expired. mrs. beatty: it will be interesting as we move forward. thank you, mr. speaker. i am in opposition to 1699. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i am now pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new mexico, the chairman of the finance services subcommittee on terrorism and illicit finance, mr. pearce. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pearce: thank you for bringing this subject to the floor. i suspect i may be a few members of congress that my first house was a manufactured house. not only that but i represent a district where 50% of the housing is manufactured housing. so i think it's important that we kind of separate the two discussions. if the cfpb were looking at the abuses and going after the abusers that i heard talked about from the other side, there might not be a discussion today. that's not what cfpb did. what cfpb did said is, all

balloon notes are bad. now, i can't find any bank from the east coast to the west coast who will come into new mexico and lend $33,000 for a used mobile home and put it on a 30-year note. you can tear up a mobile home within days. so balloon notes are simply made in order that people can come in and check. they didn't use them to maybe put bad adjustments and higher interest rates or anything. they just want to be able to look so they generally put these loans on a five-year basis. at the end of five years, everything's good, we continue to roll it. we don't start from scratch. prejudicial you interests. they were declared to be prejudicial in their nature when they weren't. qualified mortgages were another way they shut off the lending for the manufactured housing in our district. owner-seller financing was

another way. what happens in new mexico? somebody will buy a trailer house, manufactured house, they'll live in it, pay for by another one and in the lifetime accumulate 10 or 15 and when they begin to retire sell one or two at a time. if you sell more than two you are now a broker-dealer. it shut off much of the access of just one seller selling to another. if the cfpb had listened, we brought the cfpb in. we brought kelly cochran about five years ago to say, please, we understand what you are trying to do. we understand no one wants to be protecting those who are violating consumer rights, but just get it within its lanes. kelly was there almost an hour, admitted she was not aware of many of the things that we were bringing about that were on-the-ground problems. they never changed them. mr. cordray continued to assert

he had solved all the problems when he had never solved any of the problems. most of the banks in new mexico -- and i live on the texas line -- so most of the banks in that region of texas and new mexico quit offering to finance manufactured housing. that meant the people who needed it the most had no access to credit. now, we had discussed these items in the open hearings many times with the cfpb director, mr. cordray, and it just seemed like they could never get focused on those. so this bill today -- ask another 15 seconds, mr. chairman. mr. hensarling: i yield the gentleman another 15 seconds. mr. pearce: this bill is simply saying, we have people with a need who need to be able to get access to loans to finance houses to live in. it's the way i began. it's the way i want other people in new mexico to begin. let's just restore order to the market. that's what we're trying to do. i yield back and support the bill, mr. chairman.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, a senior member of the financial services committee, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you so much, ranking member. i appreciate that. i want to deal with two things right quick in my two minutes. the c.p.a. -- the cfpb's directorship. i want to deal with that. but let me just start with clarifying a few things. first of all, manufactured housing is the cornerstone of affordable housing in this country. that -- nobody argues that. affordable -- the manufactured housing is in every state in this union. in my state of georgia, it accounts for 12% of all the affordable housing units. and some states it's even higher than that. i just simply want to clarify why i support the bill. it's because of two things. one, it's because of the

devastating federal regulations that are on it for these hundreds of thousands and millions of customers. and what it's doing is it's making the american people unable to purchase manufactured housing, and i think we have to look at that. it's also eroding the home values of existing owners of manufactured housing. our bill simply moves to correct it by doing three things. we just simply do some technical clarifications to the definition of mortgage originator, loan originator and the high-cost mortgage. and let me just say this. i was an original sponsor of dodd-frank. what we put in there, we made sure that mortgage protection and dodd-frank is protected in here, including anybody steering anybody into any kind

of loans with predatory amplifications. so all that is in there. this is a great debate. there are two sides to it. but when you look at it, it's the millions of americans who are suffering from an ability to get the mobile home, of an ability to keep them -- and all we're doing is simply making these minor adjustments. now i want to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: may i just have 30 seconds? ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: i appreciate that. do want to clarify this about dodd -- about the cfpb director. i want to quote and i want the american people to listen to me. in section 1011 of dodd-frank, paragraph 5, it states this -- hat the deputy director of the consumer financial protection agency shall be appointed by

he director and serve as acting director in the absence or unavailability of the director. we wrote this, chairman hensarling. we wrote this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: this is the law. we must abide by it. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, the vice chairman of the financial services subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer credit, mr. rothfus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rothfus: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 1699, the preserving access to manufactured housing act. as the vice chairman of the financial institutions subcommittee and co-sponsor of this legislation, i urge my colleagues to support its passage. representative barr's bipartisan bill, and i really appreciate the comments from mr. scott, my colleague from georgia, on this bill. this bill will remove misguided

barriers that block access to affordable manufactured homes while preserving consumer protections. it's important to keep in mind the challenge of finding affordable housing is not exclusively an urban problem. housing affordability is challenged in many rural areas, including parts of my district. manufactured homes can be a solution to this affordability challenge. they can give many low to moderate income families a chance at homeownership. the fact is, mr. speaker, the current regulatory environment is taking competition out of this market to the detriment of consumers. nationwide 22 million americans live in manufactured homes in my state of pennsylvania, manufactured homes comprise almost 5% of the housing stock. manufactured homes account for 73% of all new homes sold under $125,000, and the average income of a manufactured home purchaser is less than $40,000 per year. the manufactured housing business also sustains thousands of families, 16,000 workers in pennsylvania are employed in this industry. unfortunately, the misguided rules from washington threaten

to choke off access to manufactured housing. the preserving access to manufactured housing act will address these harmful rules that are making manufactured homes unaffordable for perspective customers while preserving important consumer protections. it is important to keep in mind that the truth in lending act and state consumer protection laws will still apply after enactment of this legislation. representative barr's bill is narrowly focused, common sense and a bipartisan effort to target a specific challenge facing perspective purchasers of manufactured homes. the bill will preserve access to this affordable option for millions of americans. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. . soap the the gentleman yields back his team. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, a member of the progressive caucus always on the side of consumers, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. schakowsky: i thank the lady for yielding to me and for

her continued advocacy for all consumers. particularly the low-income consumers who are affected by this legislation. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1699. that cuts consumer protections for buyers of manufactured homes. for years the manufactured housing industry has preyed on low-income households. pushing them into high interest mortgages. under this bill, buyers of manufactured homes would effectively get less protection than any other home buyers. on top of that, the bill would encourage higher interest rates on loans from manufactured homes, taking a bigger bite out of families' paychecks. this manufactured housing bill is actually part of a multipronged attack on safeguards implemented by the consumer financial protection bureau.

president trump has placed o.m.b. director, economic mulvaney, at the cfpb to destroy it from within while republicans in congress are chipping away at consumer protections from the outside. americans deserve better. i really urge my colleagues to stand up for consumers and vote no. it's easy to go after those people who live in these trying parks, who are to make their way, who are struggling to have -- make ends meet, and this bill adds another layer of problem for them by allowing for higher interest rates. it's just wrong. trying to make we should be voting no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from

maine, land of moose, maple syrup, and lobster, a distinguished member of the financial services committee, mr. poliquin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poliquin: thank you mr. speaker. thank you very much, mr. chairman. you forgot pine trees, that's ok. mr. speaker, i am thrilled to stand up in support 1699, preserving access to manufactured housing. i salute congressman andy barr from tennessee to bring this forward. maine, mr. chairman, maine, mr. speaker, has some of the highest home othership rates in the country. e love our homes in maine. i represent the rural part of our state. in our state, mr. speaker, we have times of the year where the weather is pretty tough. if you're building a home that's not manufactured in a warehouse, sometimes you literally cannot build that home because of the weather, the snow, cold, what have you. but there is nothing more important, mr. speaker, nothing more important, than making sure moms and dads across america and across maine have

an option, have as many options as possible to house their kids, to take care of their kids, and make sure they are safe. and manufactured housing in many parts of the country is the only affordable option. now, h.r. 1699 makes a small technical change such that folks who want to get into a home and want to take part in the great american dream of homeownership, have the opportunity to get a loan to do this. government, mr. speaker, is supposed to help our families. not get in the way. here's an example of us being able to remove an unnecessary restriction that hurts our families and prevents them from taking -- having an opportunity to get in their first home. we need more options not less, mr. speaker. let's help our families and not get in the way. i salute mr. barr with this great bill. i am fully in support of this. let's help our families get into manufactured homes.

if this is what they want and this is what they can afford. thank you, sir. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman wish to restate the state of the -- country where mr. barr is from? mr. poliquin: did i say kentucky or maine? if i said maine we wish he were there. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentlelady from california. and ters: mr. chairman members, first let me just say that i recognize some of the issues and the way they have been described by mr. pearce from new mexico. and i think that he's on the right track in how we can deal with giving assistance to those who want to own manufactured housing and assistance to those who want to own more than one manufactured housing.

looking toward their retirement. and i support that. and he has given a new definition to me for balloon payments and how it works in this industry. and i want to work with him to get something done. what i want to do is separate these fact that manufactured homeowners -- owners of manufactured housing need some protections in law. we don't want to strip out all these protections for them. they deserve to be treated fairly. if they are going to be charged the high interest rates, they deserve to have the protections that everybody else has. i mean, it's not fair that some of us can buy homes at market rate at 4.25% or whatever, and they have to pay 18% because they are considered a high

risk. and they can't even refinance these homes. so i want to show you some of the advertising from clayton where they talk about repos available. they got plenty of them. of course they repossess these homes. i just want to say that in dition to this monopoly of that they way treat people when they fall behind in their payments, they don't want to do loan modifications. they don't do them, that they treat people when they fall rea as a matter of fact they hire these people off the street, basically, who come and harass these homeowners and treat them extremely bad. and they talk to them about the fact that they want these mortgage -- they want this they'll tell

them we've got documentation where they tell them they'll te them we've got documentation where they tell them don't pay your medical bills. you pay or we're going to come and repossess this. i want to to tell you i have the great -- i want to tell you i have the greatest respect for the least of these. whether you are in the urban area, rural area you deserve the respect and support from your government. and i want you to know that those who represent these areas, let's stop being on the side of the people who exploit them and let's get on the side of the consumers. in this last election, we heard a lot about the fact that people in small towns and rural areas were upset with their government and felt nobody cared about them. i want them to ask the people who represent them whose side are they on? with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. -- the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to yield one minute to a distinguished member of the financial services committee, the gentleman from arkansas, mr.

hill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hill: i thank the speaker. i thank the chairman. i want to thank my friend, andy barr, for bringing this bill back to the floor of the house to be on the side of the consumer. to be on the side of affordable choices. to be on the side of truly affordable housing, and so many areas where there is no alternative. many in the urban areas of our country, the east and west coast elites, who make financial policy, have no understanding of living out in the country. they don't realize we don't have stick built alternatives in many rural areas of our country. as a former commute -- community banker in arkansas, the most affordable, best alternative for many of our families is a manufactured home. working with a relative for a plot of land. dodd frank has made that -- dodd-frank has made that unaffordable, unavailable . to that point i want to say i got a letter from a pal at the

army national guard who said i was turned down on a loan that would be cheaper, larger, and better for my family. better than the house, the 60-year-old house he was renting. so that's why we need this bill. i thank the chairman for bringing it to the floor today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, another distinguished member of the house financial services committee, mr. emmer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. emmer: i mr. emmer: i thank the chair. mr. speaker, 22 million americans live in manufactured homes. the majority of these homes are in rural america. in fact, more than six out of 10 manufactured homes are ocated in rural areas.

in my home state of minnesota, manufactured homed homes are the state's largest source of affordable homeownership. unfortunately, a provision in dodd-frank has put homeownership out of in my home state of minnesota, these americans. specifically dodd-frank of the cfpb modified the criteria and exspanneded the types of lobes from lenders to manufactured home buyers which are to be, quote, high cost. as a direct result, lenders are struggling to make these loans because of a high legal risk associated with this, quote, to cost. as a direct result, high cost definition, low-income arming buyers in minnesota. the consumers are being harmed in minnesota and around the country. this is why republicans and democrats have come together in support of h.r. 16 the 9, the preserving access -- 1699, the preserving access to manufactured housing act, authored by andy barr from kentucky, our herseth sandlin friend, to help millions of americans to became homeowners. this legislation provides clarity. h.r. 1699 will ensure that home buyers in rural and low-income areas are able to afford

manufactured housing and are not unfairly targeted by the very agency created to protect them. mr. speaker, when it comes to achieving the american dream, government should not be standing in the way. as members of congress, it is our duty to stand up for and against this continued overreach. support the american dream. and vote yes for h.r. 1699. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from texas. hensarling: mr. speaker, i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from georgia, distinguished member of the financial services committee, mr. loudermilk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. loudermilk: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding time. clearly, mr. speaker, the overregulation of dodd-frank coupled with unfettered agencies like hensarling: mr. s hurt americans from wall street to main street. today, mr. speaker, i'm not here to talk about wall street

or main street but a little two lane street in georgia. it has a small post office, country store, and hardworking their home.all it many people who live in castle work at one of the many factories in the local area. while these hardworking the upper re not their home. middle class, they are the backbone of america's commifment like 22 million other americans, many live in a manufactured home. you'll find a number of manufactured homes, some own individual lots, some on farmland, some in quaint little mobile home parks. as it is across the nation, almost half of those the living this these homes have incomes of less than $30,000 a year and many are retired or disabled. historically manufactured homes have allowed families who couldn't afford the cost of a traditional house the ability to achieve the american cream. however the cfpb has expanded enforcement of regulation that is were designed for mortgage lending on traditional homes to include manufactured home retailers. this has made it much more difficult for consumers to

obtain financing for these homes. this bill, mr. speaker, raines -- reins in federal agencies enough to give needed reto the manufactured housing industry and allow families access to these affordable homes. i fully support this bipartisan bill which gained the support of 2/3 of the financial services committee industry, and i commend my colleague from the great state of kentucky for bringing this bill forward. thank you. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: yes, mr. chairman. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, the chair of the democratic caucus, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crowley: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentlelady from california for yielding me this time. this bill before us today, h.r. 1699, as i understand it, would eliminate the safeguards for were tured homes that

put in place to protect consumers to the dodd-frank legislation which included the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau. the american people are looking at us and asking, what is congress doing? after everything that went down after the 2008 crash, we saw folks on wall le street, many within the banking industry, the nonbank banks and what they were doing, and the answer here is to take away even further protection for the american consumer. and the consumer -- the consumer financial protection attack on that

bureau is an attack on .verything america stands for more than 12 billion ill-gotten gains have been given back to the american people to the cfpb. the cfpb stands up for them when others have let them down. so naturally since its inception, the republicans have done everything they possibly could to kneecap this important agency. and now a republican white house is attempting to destroy . from the inside out the great recession brought millions of americans a foreclosure notice and a pink slip through no fault of their own. they were victims of a financial system that couldn't look out for consumers. there weren't enough referees the playing field, but they

did look out for big banks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. waters: mr. chairman -- will mr. hensarling give me me he promised me so i can give it to mr. crowley. mr. hensarling: i believe we don't have time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. crowley: i will yield back, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: yes, mr. speaker, we have lots of members who wish to speak in favor of this bill and i'm pleased now to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, yet another distinguished member of the financial services committee, mr. budd. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. budd: i thank the chairman for yielding. also thank my friend, mr. h barr from kentucky, for his -- mr. barr from kentucky for his vital work on this issue. a requirement that works for one type of business may not work for another type of

business. right now the law treats those who make loans on manufactured houses similarly to those who are refinancing mortgages on their homes. the reality is that these are completely different transactions. buying a $20,000 manufactured home is not the same as financing a $200,000 home with a 30-year mortgage. the borrower is in a different position with very different needs. the lender is making a loan that's often secured differently for a much smaller amount but with similar paperwork and similar cost. the federal government, since dodd-frank, has been treating both of these transactions similarly from a regulation perspective. it's hurt borrowers trying to buy a piece of their american dream. in "the wall street" lenders suggested they would not make these loans if they continue to suffer under this faulty regular nation scenario. one lender says that about a third of its sales, 6,100 homes would be affected. that's 6,100 american families who would lose out on

homeownership, on building equity, on making an investment instead of paying rent. the bill simply says, look, the person making $20,000 loan on a manufactured home is not the same as a bank or a mortgage broker originating a 30-year fixed rate mortgage and should not be treated in the same way. it's a commonsense solution, and that's why i got -- it's gotten bipartisan backing. i urge support, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: may i inquire as to how much time i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has 30 seconds remaining. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. speaker and members, you've heard the debate on this bill, and i think everyone can easily recognize that we on this side of the aisle are trying to protect our most vulnerable consumers, people who live in manufactured housing, in mobile

homes, in trailer parks need to be respected and given the same protections as anybody else with a mortgage. and i would say to those who are here supporting a bill that would allow interest rates on these mobile homes, on this manufactured housing, to increase with no protections, are putting their constituents at risk. i would ask for a big no vote on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, a member of the financial services committee, mr. kustoff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kustoff: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the preserving access to manufactured housing act of 2017, legislation which i am proud to be an original co-sponsor. in west tennessee where i am from and in other rural areas across the country, there's no doubt that manufactured housing is a critical and affordable

option for many families. in fact, more than 8 1/2 million families. that's roughly 22 million americans have chosen this option because of the affordability and the value. in fact, where i'm from, one out of every 10 west tennesseans have chosen manufactured housing as the best option to make their home. for this reason, our legislation is essential to protecting consumer choices and financing options for those seeking to buy a manufactured home while also leaving in place important consumer protections. in fact, close to 60% of new manufactured homes sell for less than $70,000 and are usually available at lower monthly payments than what it cost to rent. manufactured homes are offered as a fixed rate, fixed term option. i'm pleased to support this

commonsense, bipartisan legislation which will allow many americans seeking the american dream of owning a home to continue to have access to affordable manufactured housing. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the time of the gentlelady from california has expired. the gentleman from texas is ecognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, a member of the small business committee, mr. norman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. norman: thank you, mr. hensarling. i want to rise today in full support of h.r. 1699. i spent 40 years of my career developing land and actually buying manufactured housing which makes it possible for families who cannot afford a stick built home in many cases to be able to buy a manufactured house. i have seen firsthand the critical role that manufactured housing plays in the development of local

communities and the ability for a family to buy their first home. we have seen far too often regulatory overreach by the consumer financial protection bureau has impeded and stopped, in many cases, the ability for consumers to receive financing for manufactured housing and has placed unnecessary requirements on retailers. this legislation addresses this overreach by making commonsense reforms to increase the availability and financing for manufactured housing while it maintains important protections for consumers. i urge my colleagues to support this all-important legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield it's back his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time i have remaining to close? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 2 1/4 minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. what we've heard this morning, unfortunately, is an assault on affordable housing from too

many people on the other side of the aisle. we have washington elites who are deciding that low-income people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. we have too many people on the other side of the aisle, mr. speaker, who want to take them out of their affordable homes, manufacturing homes and say, no, go rent, go find someplace on the street. here's the reality. when washington elites at the orwellian name of the consumer financial protection bureau decided to make these manufactured housing loans, quote-unquote, high cost, we saw a 22% drop in these type of loans being made. but what we know is that this is vital. this is vital for so many working americans. you know, we heard from one who falling ew york, i was

behind on my own site-built mortgage payment. i was drowning in debt. i needed cheaper housing, an alternative that would meet the needs of my family. the manufacturing housing payment cut my overall expense by 57%. ok. that's just one example, mr. speaker. i have story after story of consumers who this is their only option for affordable housing but too many of my friends on the other side of the aisle says, no, no. we can't allow you to do that. you know, you might pay a little higher interest rate. well, here's a news flash, mr. speaker. their monthly payment is lower and they get to own their own home. washington elites have tried price controls before. they've been tried since the dawn of man, and it always leads to shortages. we don't want to shortchange working americans for

affordable housing. we want to protect, we want to protect the vulnerable in society. we want to allow them to have affordable housing, and that's why it's so important that today we pass h.r. 1699, protect affordable housing, protect freedom. let's vote this in today, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 635, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the speaker pro tempore: a bill to amend the truth in lending act to modify the definitions of a mortgage originator and a high-cost mortgage, to amend the secure and fair enforcement for mortgage licensing act of 2008 to modify the definition and for originator, other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the

gentlelady opposed to the bill? ms. waters: in its current form i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. waurs of california moves to recommit the bill 16 9 to the -- 1699 to the committee on financial services. add at the end the following -- section 4. protecting consumers from excessive housing costs and predatory lenders. a, in general, no lender or other person may be -- may make use of the amendments made by this -- ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. the reading is sbist dispensed with. -- is dispensed with. pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment is simple. it would prevent bad actors from being able to use the exemptions in the underlying

bill and evade the consumer protections in the truth in lending act. if a lender has committed or engaged in an unfair, deceptive or abusive act or practice under federal law, in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a financial product or service or if they have been convicted of fraud under federal law, state law, in connection with the residential mortgage loan or the extension of any loan in connection with a manufactured home, they cannot avail themselves of the bill's decreased scrutiny. as i've already mentioned, ayton homes has nearly a monopolistic grip on manufacturing housing. vanderbilt mortgage paid a $2.8 million settlement to homebuyers in north carolina after the state attorney

general and commissioner of banks accused them of fraud for utilizing inaccurate information to obtain loans for consumers and for inflating the prices of manufactured homes. this is the type of abuse that my amendment seeks to address, making sure that lenders who have engaged in abusive practices abide by the rules set forth in dodd-frank and carried out by the consumer bureau is especially important now that the trump administration is attempting to undermine the independence of the agency. after the illegal move to install mick mulvaney as acting director and then his kick move to freeze all the hiring, the supervision and new regulations at the consumer bureau, it is clear that abusive financial institutions that simply rip off consumers have been -- will

have free rein to continue harming them. that includes not only conglomerates like clayton homes but repeat offenders such as wells fargo, an institution that has illegally modified mortgages, charge fraudulent mortgage rates and steered borrowers into predatory mortgage loans. american families deserve better. at an absolute minimum, leaneder who has already proven they cannot be trusted to originate responsible loans should not be awarded with diminished standards, particularly in an industry like manufactured housing, which is typically the only affordable option for many financially vulnerable consumers. . mr. speaker, time and time again my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle talk about how they are for main street america and rural

communities that democrats have forgotten. so why is it that they want to allow bad actors to prey upon rural families? according to the housing assistance council, while manufactured housing only makes up 6% of all housing nationally, it makes up 14% to 15% in rural and small town communities. we need to be doing more to help rural families. not making it easier for bad actors to just rip them off. i urge adoption of my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, this is a vaguely worded and unneeded m.t.r. we continue to hear from the -- our friends from the other side of the aisle that we don't have

sufficient consumer protections in place, but i wonder, i wonder how denying a low-income family access to credit to buy an affordable home is somehow construed as consumer protection? i wonder how denying a low-income family the ability to own a home at a lower cost with a lower monthly payment somehow can be construed as consumer protection. and i wonder how a policy, a 22% that has led to a drop, 22% drop in the availability of manufactured housing credit can somehow be construed as consumer protection? only in washington could you have such an absurd result. but i have good news for all members of the house.

after, after the passage of h.r. 1699, guess what? manufactured housing manufactured housing loans will still be subject to the equal credit opportunity act. they will still be subject to the fair housing act. they will still be subject to the fair credit reporting act. they will still be subject to the truth in lending act. they will still be subject to the home mortgage disclosure act. they will still be subject to the real estate settlement and procedures act. and the list, mr. speaker, goes on and on and on. what we have heard is an attempt, again, by washington elites, to take away affordable housing. no one who votes against h.r. 1699 ought to be able to look themselves in the mirror and claim they are an advocate for affordable housing. not when they take it away. not when we have seen a 22% decrease after the actions of the elites at the so-called

consumer protection financial bureau. it shouldn't be done. it is time to reject this motion to recommit. it is time to stand for low and moderate income americans. it's time to stand for affordable housing. it's time for us to vote for h.r. 1699. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. i'm sorry, the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device.

pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered. and agreeing to the speaker's if oval of the journal, ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. if ordered. 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 193. he nays are 227.

the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. the gentlelady -- recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. his is a five-minute vote. five minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 255.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 256. the nays are 163. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the request on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands -- the gentleman from virginia. for what purpose does the

gentleman rise? >> i ask the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a for what purpose does the vote yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y 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 209, the nays are 169. voting present were two. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i would ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 6:00 p.m. on monday next. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. he house will be in order. members will please take their onversations from the floor. he house will be in order.

the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. members will please take their onversations from the floor.

the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this saturday evening santa claus will arrive atop an electric truck to light town's christmas tree and in doing so, continue a tradition over 100 years old. since 1909 residents in upper bucks county have gathered together to participate in the community tree lighting ceremony. recognized as the oldest tree lighting in the nation. mr. fitzpatrick: while a lot has changed over the generations, community leaders, elected officials and local residents have kept this annual event's unique smalltown charm and enshrined it as a timeless christmas ritual. now in its 108th year, this official start to the holiday season continues to serve not only as a source of pride for the people, but also an example of what makes the communities across our districts an honor to represent. i am proud to recognize their 108th community christmas tree

lighting and enjoy the celebration of this enduring holiday tradition. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california -- excuse me, rom new york seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the g.o.p. tax plan is more than a bad deal for most working class and middle class americans. it is a tax scam. many families that will be hit the hardest by this tax plan are new yorkers. it will cost new yorkers a total of $17 billion. and they are my constituents. repealing the state and local tax deduction also known as salt is an assault to my constituents. my district will have the highest tax increases in the nation without salt. mr. espaillat: mr. speaker, repealing salt means that 760,000 new yorkers residing

across the state will have their taxes increased. this is a bad deal for them and all americans. this will mean an average increase of almost $5,000 pyramiddle class family, investing in education, firefighters and police services, these and many other essential services keep our cities running. they are not an option. city services are not a luxury and we should not be punishing taxpayers who pay for them. i urge my colleagues to reject this tax scam. and negotiate a better deal. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, when the sun barely peeks over the sky, millions of women and children across the developing world wake up and make their daily dangerous walk in search of the necessity of life. water.

they walk for miles in scarce regions to a well or a polluted river for water. during these long walks, they are often put at risk of sexual abuse and assault. also bad guys control the wells and abuse women in return for the water. sometimes polluted water. the time-consuming search for water results in rape, pregnancy, child kidnapping and high educational dropout rates. access to water, sanitation and hygiene prevents disease. it also improves the safety and security of women and children across the entire world. it is encouraging to see our nation and congress recognizing water as the global security crisis that it is and the need to build capacity to clean water. with our god-given resources, we have it within our power and our duty to help others access clean water, the key to life. and that's just the way it is. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection. mr. payne: mr. speaker, today is the 29th world aids day. let us commemorate those who lost their lives and commit to reducing the 37,000 new h.i.v. infections that occur each year in the united states. in my hometown of newark, new jersey, new h.i.v. cases have been rising among young people under the age of 25. according to experts, the rise in the new hiv-aids cases among young people in newark is linked to the opioid crisis. mr. speaker, there's been a lot of discussion lately about the opioid crisis. but we forget that it is linked to so many other issues. mental health access, poverty,

communicable diseases, joblessness and the list goes on. congress can help end the opioid crisis and the hiv-aids crisis here in the united states soon. but to do that we must increase funding for health care access, mental health treatment, anti-poverty programs, disease control, education and access to h.i.v. prep medication. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize mr. michael mcdermott of homer, new york. mike is a veteran of the united states navy, having served from 1964 through 1967, with -- including 13 months of service

in vietnam. when mike returned home from the navy and vietnam, he became active in the homer community. ms. tenney: serving as a village trustee for six years and mayor for six years. mike's true passion has been as an advocate for his fellow veterans. through his service at the american legion post in homer where he has been a member for over 34 years. during his time with the post, mike has served in many roles, including commander for 13 years. he also served as commander for the courtland county american legion. mike is also involved in state and national leadership for the american legion. he serves as the national security council -- on the national security council for the american legion and with the national and new york state american legion press associations. most importantly, mike continuously gives back to courtland county and homer veterans. hosting a veteran service fair and supporting veteran causes throughout the village and county each and every year. we are grateful to compassionate citizens like michael mcdermott throughout our communities and we're grateful for their service

and dedication to our nation's veterans. thank you from a giving and warm community, michael mcdermott. we appreciate your service. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to commemorate world aids day. the theme this year is increasing impact through transparency, accountability and partnerships. first i'd like to thank leader pelosi for her steadfast commitment to fighting h.i.v. and aids and for guaranteeing the strong united states leadership in this area. as the co-founder and co-chair of the bipartisan congressional hiv-aids caucus, with my good friend, congresswoman ileana ros-lehtinen, we have seen significant progress that we have made in the global fight against h.i.v. year after year congress has come together in a bipartisan way to stop the spread of this disease. from pepfar and the global fund

to fight aids, tuberculosis and malaria, which i was very proud to help write, to the ryan white care act and the minority aids initiative. the united states has been a global leader in committing the critical resources needed to end this disease both here at home and abroad. partly due to our efforts, over 20 million people around the world have access to life-saving anti-retroviral treatment. 20 million people getting life-save medicine. that's more than the population of the state of new york. so in memory of those who died much too soon, let's recommit ourselves to ending the aids by 2030 and realizing an aid-free generation. -- aids-free generation. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would remind all members to take their conversations off the floor at this time. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to acknowledge the

70th anniversary of the national ush be security technology -- urban security technology known as new steel. located in new york city, they have been a critical asset in protecting our homeland since 1947. they began as a lab to measure radioactive fallout. now part of the department of homeland security's science and technology directorate, it has been transformed into a one of a kind testing and evaluation laboratory for the first responder community. i've had the opportunity to visit new steel and saw firsthand the impressive work being done on a daily basis. mr. donovan: new steel is constantly developing and testing new tools that ensure the brave women and men on our front lines can protect our homeland. and it's critical they have the resources needed to continue their innovative work. i want to thank the dedicated women and men of new steel for their service. congratulations on this important anniversary. i look forward to continuing to celebrate your remarkable

accomplishments for years to come. i yield back, mr. speaker, the remainder of my time. without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to speak out against the senate's version of their tax reform bill. because this bill will hurt the central coast of california. by fully repealing the state and local tax deduction, 177,000 households in my district that deduct an average of $23,000 each year will be hurt. by repealing the student loan interest deduction, low and middle income students in my district will find college further out of reach and will be hurt. by allowing individual tax cuts to expire on people earning less than $75,000, over 140,000 households in my district will see their taxes go up and they will be hurt. and now with the confirmation that the tax cuts will not pay

for themselves, but will add over $1 trillion to our debt, this tax reform bill will be a tax burden bill, not only for my constituents in my district, but for all of our constituents in our nation. and worse, this bill will hurt not only my two daughters, but all of our sons and daughters. that is why i oppose the senate bill and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, over a year ago, page steinle, was murdered by a criminal illegal alien and died in the arms of her father. at that time as chairman of the commerce, justice, science subcommittee on appropriations, i swore i would do whatever it take to cut off every dollar of federal money to every sanctuary city in america. i persuaded the previous attorney general to put that policy in place and begin to implement it, thankfully with president trump's election and appointment of our new attorney eneral, jeff sessions, the new

attorney general and new moved aggressively to law, secure or bourder, and restore respect for the rule of law in this great nation. it's appalling and outrageous that a jury in san francisco acquitted this killer who murdered kate steinle. this should renew our zeal as representatives of the people of this country to restore respect for the rule of law by cutting off every dollar of federal money to every sanctuary city in america and do whatever it takes to protect our citizens from criminal illegal aliens who enter this country illegally and commit crimes against the people of this great nation. what happened in san francisco is an outrage and will i not rest until we cut off every dollar to every sanctuary city in the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, the republican tax scam picks clear winners and losers, yet our colleagues are rushing it through congress faster than president trump can

retweet british racists. the winners in this tax scam, let's be clear, are the country's wealthiest, including donald trump and his family and his billionaire cronies in the cabinet. meanwhile, students, middle class families, homeowners, and seniors across this country, are the losers. they are left holding the bag. californians get an especially raw deal because my republican colleagues want to impose an unfair double tax on the state and local tax that is we pay. mr. huffman: more bad news for californians. homeowners will be hit by a cap on interest deductions and students will have to pay taxes on student loan interest, grad students will lose tax-free tuition waivers, and biotech companies will see their tax credit disappear. this republican tax bill is unbelievably bad. it's historically unpopular, for good reason. it's not too late for my republican colleagues to stop t i yield back.

-- speaker pro tempore: stop it. i -- stop it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to rosa parks who 62 years ago changed the face of the united states. n december 1, 1955, rosa parks refused a bus driver's orders to give up her seat on a segregated bus in montgomery, alabama. this simple act led to a bus boycott that helped to energize the civil rights movement. reflecting on that day, rosa parks once said the only tired i was was tired of giving in. she didn't give up. mrs. lawrence: she didn't give in. reminds us that we

all must never, reminds us that all must never, never give in when faced with injustice. her brave actions has inspired all of us each and every one of us have an opportunity to stand up, sit down, or kneel for what is right. it is because of civil rights champions like rosa parks that future generations can grow up in a nation that is free and fair for all. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, the republican tax plan that provides massive tax cuts, permanent tax cuts to the largest corporations and tax increases for millions of ddle class americans, is bad tax policy. mr. deutch: let's be honest about what it does. this $1.5 trillion tax cut will licy. trigger cuts to domestic programs in the amount of $150 billion every year. including $25 billion in cuts

to medicare. 55 million will trigger cuts americans who rely on medicare will be put at risk if this bill becomes law. mr. speaker, it is bad enough that this tax policy favors the largest corporations over middle class americans. but to affect these kinds of massive cuts, tricking the american people in order to try to do it, is shameful. we have to defeat this bill. we have to prevent these massive cuts. we have to protect the 55 million americans on medicare from a $25 billion cut. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. lowenthal: mr. speaker, i want to quote from one of my colleagues from california. state and local

tax deduction would assure that almost all of the bill's tax would be contributed to other states. leaving california with the bill. that was would be contributed t other states. leaving california with the bill. that was from my republican colleague, darrell issa. you know what, mr. speaker? he was right on this. the republican tax plan is cruel in so many ways. but perhaps the worst provision, specifically targets states like california, new york, and new jersey. our states have stepped into the breach which has been left by the federal government. we have raised taxes to pay for infrastructure. we have raised taxes to pay for hospitals. we have raised taxes to pay for schools. and now the republicans want to punish us? mr. speaker, this is a political game, plain and

simple. californians are smart enough to see through it. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, address the house. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. today in federal district court in washington, michael flynn pled guilty to lying to mr. cohen: thank the f.b.i., a felony. it's a strong indication that he's cooperating with the mueller investigation concerning russia and its involvement with president trump and his team and the election of the president of the united states. we're facing a crisis in our country with our constitution and our form of government and the rule of law. i have filed a bill to amend the constitution to not allow pardons of people from the president's or any president's campaign team or family. but there's also a bill i'm a sponsor of that says you can't

fire a special counsel without cause. and that the special counsel would have the right to seek redress in court. we must be ready to protect bob mueller and the integrity of the rule of law in this country or i foresee this president firing him as nixon did, the saturday night massacre. we're repeating the horrors of -watergate and shredding of our constitution and common sense and decrency. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy the nuary 3, 2017, gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. gohmert: as folks head back to their districts, and i will be doing so shortly, it's important to take a look at been ings that have our important here in country. the department of justice does need an investigation into the , ters that have been raised and clearly were not handled

roperly regarding the russia uranium one program and the sale of significant percentage of united states uranium ultimately to russia. there appears to be collusion for sure. and it is still staggering to hink that the person who accepted the role as special , osecutor, robert mueller would accept that knowing that selected person that him as special prosecutor, mr. rosen steen -- rosenstein, were involved in the russia

investigation that went on a mber of years involved a person working undercover and clearly established for director mueller as head of the f.b.i. and for mr. rosen stein, the u.s. -- rosenstein, the u.s. attorney, clearly established for them that russia was trying to corner the market using or by acquiring merican uranium. and yet while you had a man like jeff sessions trying to go assure that y to nobody could say he acted inappropriately, i think it was done prematurely, but he

recused himself. not wanting to be a burden to the president. but as much as attorney general jeff sessions was trying to be air and avoid even the appearance of questions about him handling the russia robert ation, you had mueller and the deputy attorney , appeared to be even more inappropriately than beyond sions was acting .he pale of honor as they, two people involved in the investigation of russia

acquiring american uranium, even though it wasn't just hillary clinton that sounded off on it. it was also eric holder and some others. all that needed to be investigated but not by the people who covered up the prior saw to nvestigation and the ceiling many of the documents involving that investigation, in fact, mr. rosenstein's name was actually matters tion to seal involved in that investigation. . seemed pretty clear that if you're going to go to the trouble of sealing, sealing an thestigation like that, and

extraordinary measure of getting the person who is acting under cover -- undercover, force him, threaten him, get him to sign a under losure agreement threat, seems to me that wasn't an arms link transaction. that was done under coercion by the most powerful law enforcement people in the country at the time. threatening to bring down the full weight of the united states government on the man that was working for them, helping them find the evidence that showed how russia was acting so inappropriately. and illegally trying to get hold f our uranium. and just when you think, well, just can't be much more in the way of surprises, the daily

.aller has a story, november 30 the d.o.d., department of defense, inspector general opens a probe into alleged retaliation by an obama holdover. it says, the pentagon's inspector general has launched a preliminary investigation into charges that james h. baker, the director of the defense department's office of net saysment, or o.n.a., is retal -- assessment, or o.n.a., is retaliating against a whistleblower who warned of rigged contracts to outside .onsultants the dcnf verified through two independent sources that the acting i.g., glen fein, initiated a formal whistleblower reprisal investigation september

28 to look into allegations that aker unleashed various reprisals against adam lubbinger, a senior o.n.a. official. lubbinger had warned about potential sweetheart deals to politically connected outside contractors, including one with a woman, chelsea -- including ne a woman chelsea clinton has referred to as a best friend. under presidential directive 19, in october -- an october, 2012, directive designed to protect members of the intelligence community who report waste, fraud and abuse. the directive pointedly states that it, quote, prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud and abuse. baker is an obama holdover

appointed by secretary ashton carter in may, 2015, who remains the o.n.a. director 11 months into the trump administration. i might insert here, this has got to be so frustrating to the president of the united states, as the senate democrats continue to hold up efforts to get nominations confirmed so that he can start implementing the policies that he was elected to carry out. by hey're thwarting him continuing to have obama holdovers, even though that term pparently we're told offends our national security advisor, mcmasters. a guy that apparently can't stand the president and is this watering his efforts at -- and

is this watering his efforts at every turn -- and is this atering -- thwarting his efforts at every turn he can. he's staying around, according to this information, to carry against someone who was a whistleblower, complaining of sweetheart deals to people, including ms. clinton's best friend. but lubbinger specifically rotested $11.2 million deal or o.n.a. contracts awarded over a decade to long-term strategic group, a company owned by jacqueline newmire, a childhood friend of chelsea clinton. clinton and newmire first met

each other while attending school, an exclusive private quaker school in the nation's capital. they were in each other's wedings. and in 2011 chelsea referred to newmire as her best friend. lubbinger's attorney accuses baker of continuing the contract with chelsea clinton's friend in the hopes it would help him in a linton presidency. we submit that baker's interest was his awareness of the long-term strategic group and clinton connection. his were you sumped desire to exploit that to his advantage in the event of a clinton election - thank you. and the fact that the contractors like this one served as a lucrative landing pad for

o.n.a. retirees. bigly charged in a september 13 letter to rear admiral kevin sweeney, chief of staff for the defense secretary, james mattis. the i.g.'s decision to launch a preliminary investigation occurred as former high-profile national security officials began to publicly weigh in about baker's allegedly retaliatory actions. richard pearl, ronald reagan's former assistant secretary of lubbinger,ld dcnf of he's been treated badly, it's a disgrace. talk about the whistleblower. who pointed out this unseemly relationship and unfair awarding of contracts to the clinton friend. pearl called baker, quote, a shallow and manipulative

character that should have gone with a change in administration, unquote. baker being the obama holdover. in any event, it's just incredible. when you think there surely can't be any more shoes to drop about improprieties from the last administration, they just keep coming. as a form prosecutor, former judge, former chief justice, what occurred in the decision by the jury in the kate steinle homicide is really extraordinary. you know, when i was handling cases as a felony judge, you know, i know sometimes jurors

surprised me -- juries surprised me. to n this case for a jury that thishe wasn't -- person, this illegal alien that had been deported five times and who should have been deported the sixth except san francisco was protecting him, to the etriment of its residence -- residents, the jury comes back nd says he wasn't even neglect -- negligent in firing the gun that killed kate steinle? that's just staggering beyond words. is seen that dict just goes against what the

evidence shows clearly, i mean, it could have easily found that, yes, they don't find him to be credible, but of course you had the judge, number one, you had the judge protecting him. going way beyond what would seem normal to many judges in order to protect this guy. his story was apparently that, well, actually he had several stories. so any time a jury is presented with several different stories about how something happened, coming from the same individual, the one that's on trial, normally, it's my experience in noticing that if a jury finds that you lied to them about one thing, they seem to find it easier to find you guilty of what you're charged with. that often happens.

even sometimes when i might have been surprised that they could find someone guilty of the more serious charge, when there's a lesser included, like there was in this case, but it went back to where the jury felt like he had lied to us on this or he's probably -- so he's probably guilty of the crime. i'm just talk from -- talking from practicality standpoint, the way sometimes jurors look at things. in this case it didn't bother the judge, and from what the jury was allowed to hear, that , it shouldt obstruct have been clear this was not an honest individual. and that there is likely a very good chance he would lie to avoid a murder conviction and

that's why the different stories about how he came to shoot kate along arm she walked in arm with her father. just incredible. this story, john diaz-balart, san francisco chronicle, says, as they waited the verdict in the trial of kate steinle's accused killer, her parents and brother had one overriding wish. it had nothing to do with the severity of the defendant's conviction. above all, they wanted it to mark the end of a public profile, that neither sought noren joid. each immediate -- for this enjoyed. each media interview, each exploitation of kate's name for political gain, each stillshot of her smile on television only

amplified the anguish of their loss. yet they also wanted to convey their appreciation for the many strangers having heard their story who offered solace and assistance. quote, we just want to get this over with and move on with our lives and think about kate on our terms. nothing's been on our terms, it's been on everyone's' terms, unquote, said jim steinle, who was strolling with his 32-year-old daughter on a crowded san francisco pier when she was shot and killed july 1, 2015. he and his wife, liz, -- liz sullivan, their son, brad steinle, sat down with the chronicle recently at their long-time east bay home for an exclusive interview they planned to be their last. quote, we have never had a second of anger. not a moment.

jim said. frustration, maybe. and sadness for sure. but no anger. no retaliation or vindictiveness or anything like that. we're not that kind of people. even if this guy gets 100 years in prison, it doesn't solve anything. it doesn't help. it just -- we would just like people to know that the steinles have feelings. they decided not to attend court to hear the jury's decision. on thursday the verdict arrived. was ines garcia zarate acquitted of all murder and manslaughter charges. he was convicted merely of being a felon in possession of a firearm. we're just shocked, saddened and shocked. that's about it, jim said. there's no other way you can coin it. justice was rendered but it was not served.

brad said he was not surprised considering the epic failure that led garcia zarate to be released on the streets and end up with a loaded handgun on the pier that day. i'm stunned that they couldn't even get him on using the weapon , brad said. it really is staggering. the jury could not even -- they couldn't find him guilty of even a negligent type homicide? ok, you can have reasonable doubt, apparently, i don't think most people would, but in san francisco, all they hear about from the media and elected officials is how the illegal

aliens are the victims and not so much someone like kate steinle. who's a true victim. that sets a jury up to make just an inappropriate finding. the washington examiner reports that thousands of twitter users on friday are urging people to boycott san francisco after a jury there the sided a e ines fwar see ya zarate, five-time deported mexican man, charged with shooting and killing kate steinle, was not guilty. boycott san francisco hashtag began trending on twitter friday morning as people vowed not to travel there or buy goods or

services produced in the city. mr. speaker, you know, i don't normally advocate any type of here. , and really don't my thought is that people need to consider their own safety. there are dangerous places in the world. our state department will issue a travel warning to americans, be careful, try to avoid this area, it's not safe, it's dangerous. and i think the nation should have gotten the picture that in san francisco they're far more concerned about making sure illegal alien felons have a lace for a hangout, a hideout, the hole in the wall gang would have been apparently very

welcome there if they had only been illegal aliens instead of simple outlaws. it's as if they want a monument in the bay with a sign reading, give us your outlaws, so long as hey come in illegally. -- cle also here that washington examiner," it says, headline, president trump, kate steinle verdict more reason to build a wall. president's exactly right. he's exactly right. go back to the case of the gentleman who was -- who was obviously in the country

illegally and i recall he'd had nine d.w.i.'s. on a third d.w.i. in texas he can be raised up to a felony, that's how he ened up in my court. but not on the third d.w.i. he had many d.w.i.'s. it was not brought to the d.a.'s attention, because we had a terrific d.a., but it wasn't brought to his attention. this guy has already had so many d.w.i.'s. and the immigration authorities hadn't done anything. until finally he was driving drunk and hit another car, did serious injury to people in the car. they were very loving, caring people. but he was clearly an alcoholic.

so i sent him to prison. considering the safety of people in texas. this guy is out there driving drunk this many times, it's a wonder he hadn't killed somebody. he certainly will kill somebody if he's not stopped and since he had not been deported, i felt, considering the need for , for ence, for punishment public safety, all dictated that i needed to send him to prison. so i did. and was shocked when in about six months he was in my court again. i recognized him and i asked what he was doing back in my court. he said that he was charged with another d.w.i. as a felony.

but i ordered him to prison, how does he end up just in a matter of a few months being back in my court for another felony? and explained that about three months after i sent him to prison, he was picked up by the immigration authorities at prison and taken to the border, ordered to walk across the border, and he did. and he said he waited until they drove away and then he walked back across the border. and ended back in smith county, texas. so on that occasion, i thought, man if they're going to only deport the man by sending him to prison -- if i send him to prison and we don't have a wall, there's no way that president clinton certainly was not enforcing the border

sufficiently during those years, so i thought, i still got to protect people here, so i will send him to a lockdown felony substance abuse facility where nice a lockdown, can't go anywhere, confined place, with others who are either drug addicts or alcoholics and i got the report three or four months after he went in to the felony nishment for substance abuse that the immigration authorities at the time picked him up and took him to the border and if it happened the way he was deported the time before as he told me, they told him to walk across the border , he did they -- waited until the border officials,

immigration officials left and then came right back across the border immediately. e only thing i don't know is where he ended up. if he continued to follow the trend and continue coming back law o the country, enforcement officers said one thing for sure, he know he is doesn't want to come back to your court because he's going to get locked up one way or another, so in all likelihood after the immigration officials drove away, he probably came back and went to somebody else's county where he heard they didn't have a judge like me owho would enforce the law. but it put people at risk. and americans have known that. and candidate trump promised to do something about it and he's sure trying.

but he needs congress' help. i still don't have any doubt that at some point we're going to get concessions from mexico that help pay for the wall, but it needs to be done for our own safety, our own benefit, and even though there are those that say that is an outrageous thing is o to mexico, it actually the kindest, best thing we could ever do for mexico. those that have been there, my wife and i honeymooned in mexico, beautiful, beautiful place, wonderful place, we have vacationed there. certainly not in recent years. but incredible. the beauty that lies in different places in mexico.

and we know from people there and from people that have come from mexico into the united states, many of them i've got ton know and love, people i went to church with, people that came hard-work, god-fearing folks. and although it might be an overgeneralization, still the fact is, most of the people that immigrate to the united states from mexico that i've ever got ton know, that's a lot, they love god, they love their family, they're hardworking. also have to think an abundance of those three feelings are what made america the greatest,

freest, most opportune country in the history of the world. reading again last night about solomon's reign in israel. israel didn't even have the individual assets during that incredible wise man's reign, well, wise until he started having so many wives, that'll take anybody's wisdom away from them. incredible place to have lived with all the advantages that were found in israel back during solomon's reign. but they didn't have individual opportunity, individual assets, individual freedoms like we have in america. and some people get to thinking, because they don't know the history of the world, they get to thinking that gee, even if things don't work out and we lose our freedom here in

america, another america will pop up somewhere, a country that loves freedom to the extent that its own citizens will travel to other places in the world and fight and die for other people's freedom. i mean, there's just never been a place like the united states of america. and i mentioned it before, mentioned again -- mention him again, a gentleman from west africa, ebenezer, an older gentleman who with other west africans met with me before i left, my wife had been there ith mercy ship, and ultimately the end of our reception together, he pointed out , he said, you know, america has been getting weak and you know, we

were excited when you elected your first black president but we've seen america get weaker and weaker. you need to know and tell people in washington, when america gets weak, we suffer. he said, we're christians. we all know where we're going when we die but our only chance of having peace in this life is if america is strong. there's not been another cuventry that i can find in the history of the world that fought for, not imperialism, as some ignorant of history have said about the united states, obviously, should be obvious, not imperialism, because people in germany, france, don't -- they speak german. they speak french. eople in japan speak japanese. we were not out for imperialism. we were out for freedom.

we liberated kuwait under george h.w. bush. we didn't demand that they become colonies of the united states. they're an independent nation. in bosnia, in so many places, we have spilled american blood for the freedom, benefit of others, never been a nation like this. had so many individual assets and opportunities. but whether or not they will continue have a lot to do with what this body does. a wall between us and mexico where it's appropriate, where it's needed, would be the best thing we could do for mexico because they've got their natural resources. they've got a better location

for trade than the united states. they've got hardworking, god-fearing people. so why are they not one of the top 10 economies in the world? it's clear, the answer is corruption. and why is there so much corruption in mexico? because of the drug cartels. and the drug money. the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, billions with a b, of dollars that has gone to the drug cartels through the purchases of drugs and of course they've gotten into bringing people across the border illegally, border patrolmen have told me on many occasions i've been down there during the night, that there's not an inch of the border between mexico and the united states that is not under the auspices of some drug

cartel. and some drug cartels, i was told, allow, you know, some mexican gangs to carry out their jurisdiction and enforce their jurisdiction on that part of the border they control, but what the border patrolmen would tell me is there's no one who comes across the border illegally in hat drug cartel's sector who does not pay, or does not do something to get the permission of the drug cartel to come in because they're all told, when they're brought in illegally, that for those who still owe money, and have agreed to work in the city where you're ordered to go by the drug cartel, if you fail to keep paying the drug

cartels the money you owe them, keep selling drugs to pe re-pay the money or engage in prostitution to repay the money, you fail to do that, we have people all over the u.s., they will come and they will kill you. . this stuff's going on in the united states. when woodrow wilson was president, certainly not my favorite president, but even woodrow wilson, after mexican gang -- after a mexican gang came across the u.s. border one time too many and killed a bunch of american families, woodrow wilson said, enough is enough. they didn't have the wherewithal to build a wall where they needed it back then. so he sent american troops, something new called the national guard was also utilized . i've asked for official number

of u.s. troops that woodrow wilson as president sent to the border to enforce the border. and i've gotten anywhere from 15,000 to 150,000, continue to get different figures. ay have been 75,000. but regardless, woodrow wilson sent american troops to stop people from illegally entering the country. also sent a general after pancho villa. but i heard in the last administration, i heard it said that no one has done more than the obama administration to protect our border. and i know no one said that intentionally misleading. they just were not aware that woodrow wilson sent potentially

tens of thousands of american troops to the border so that nobody, nobody came across into the united states illegally to kill americans the way pancho villa had done than advocated president wilson into sending the troops. well, president trump doesn't want to have to send so many precious american lives to stand around the border protecting us. why should they when so many places, all we need is to build a wall and have it enforced the way israel enforces its wall? the irony about the israeli wall , as i have visited and been shown around their so-called israeli wall he

that has saved an abundance of children's lives who were being illed by palestinian radical islamists, they could walk across right into a basketball court or a school yard, blow themselves up, killing as many children as they could. walking into a restaurant where innocent people were sitting having pleasant times together, many families, and blow themselves up to kill as many israelis as possible. they did a remarkable job of cutting the violence by building a wall, 75% of which is a fence. the difference is, though, that their fence is monitored 24/7

and nobody comes across without them noticing and having people on the spot before the person can actually get across. we could do that. israel can do that. we can do that. and although there are mexican leaders that have been -- appeared to have been outraged, they have to know deep in their heart that if we build a wall and stop the flow of american money, billions of american dollars into mexico's drug cartel, then they can't fund the corruption, they can't keep killing any police official that gets in their way, putting their heads on pikes to set an example for others. you don'ts me with the drug cartels in mention -- you don't mess with the drug cartels in mexico. if we bring that flow of billions of dollars to a tiny trickle, then mexico can begin

to experience the kind of success that they should be experiencing. we could be the best neighbor mexico could ever have if we just helped them by building a wall, stopping anything from crossing the border illegally, including drugs. and mexico, you'd have people wanting to go to mexico and live permanentfully america, if they could trust the law enforcement situation there. which they really can't right now. and i know there are plenty of americans that have bought property there. but the restrictions on americans buying property in . xico is so significant if we applied the same terms on mexicans seeking to buy property in america, the whole of mexico would be absolutely outraged

that we were treating them the way they treat us. but as this article in "the washington examiner" points out, that president trump said it, he's accurate in saying it. kate steinle verdict is one more reason to build the wall. i hope and i pray we won't have to wait until more people are killed, as is occurring regularly, by he will lyle aliens -- by illegal aliens. it doesn't even have to be deaths. i mean, constituents of mine that have been harmed by people that come into this country illegally, driving without a driver's license or driving without insurance. hitting cars. and whether they do injury to the occupant or not, you know,

i've mentioned before, a girl weeping, she's in high school, she has to work. an illegal alien rammed her car, had no insurance, and she and her mom, single mom, could only for others,nsurance liability insurance, they couldn't afford the insurance to cover themselves. so she couldn't replace her car. and if she can't replace her car, if she cries, she says, i can't work and my mother and i can't live. how can you let people come in illegally and do such harm to americans? and wreck our lives? and he even drove away in his car without a license, without insurance, he drove away in his car after he totaled hers. it's time that we did the job we

took an oath to do. and if we enforce the constitution, the laws of the land, then americans will be protected. and we become stronger. and because of the idyllic has , as this nation assured the freedom of more and more people, first of people in our own nation, the constitution eventually came to represent what it said. all people were to be treated equally. and now to the point that for 100 years we've been in wars off and on that ensured freedom for others as well. it's time to build a wall. d in the meantime, hopefully

we're about to have a major tax reform bill. i would like to have seen a flat tax across the board. you make more, you pay more. the more you make, the more you pay. but that's not what we've done. but it is a reform. poorer ean that the americans will pay even more american -- will pay -- even more americans will pay more income tax. the poor -- working poor, fewer them will pay any income tax. and people will pay less tax. the home rate that it didn't -- in the -- is not lowered tax proposal the house and senate had was the wealthiest americans. that was left at 39.6%.

some of us think we should have had a smooth, even percent and cut across the board for everybody. how could you argue that that was fairness? but republican leaders thought, no, we will leave the highest rate on the wealthiest americans, we'll leave that percentage right where it is. taxingan't be accused of the poor to help the rich. now some will take the actual numbers of the amount of money that will be saved and say, see, people that are making more are saving more. well, yeah. people that pay a lot more in income tax will save a little bit. but not nearly the percentage that people who are the working poor will save percentage-wise.

but the best thing for the american economy will be the cut in corporate taxes. the corporate tax has been a gim by both parties for so -- gimmick by both parties for so many years. telling people, oh, no, these rich, greedy corporations, we'll make them pay. that's hiding the ball because the fact is, no corporation can stay in business unless they pass on the cost of the corporate tax to their customers, their clients, or their goods and services. they have to pass on that cost. or they can't stay in bifments you just can't -- business. you just can't. and we have the highest corporate tax of any industrialized nation in the world. china is a little less than half of our 35%.

and that's why president trump was pushing so hard, as were many of us. let's at least take it to 15%. but whatever the percentage is, unless it's zero, it is a tariff on americans' goods and services. how insane for a country to put a tariff on its own goods and services so that it makes us less competitive in the world market. if you took away the 35% tariff, lled the corporate tax, on american-made goods, we could compete globally. but because we put such a huge , riff on our own goods, 35% then our goods are far too often

not competitive in the world market. we get it. make our own products competitive anywhere. people around the world, if american prices were more competitive, they would love to buy american products. when some of us went to china, talked to c.e.o.'s about why they moved there, heard the number one answer being the corporate tax, i loved hearing them say, now, our best quality control was in america. we got better quality control, better quality of workers. i loved hearing that, around the world. the best workers in america. the best quality control for the products , in america. owest error rates, in america.

those that take pride in what they do, that's an mesh way. people would love to buy them but not when our 35% tariff we put on our own corporate-made goods not able to compete as they would if we removed it. but at least at the 15% the president, some of us were pushing for, we would have undercut china's income tax for corporations. and just even a point or two undercutting china's income tax or corporate income tax, that would have brought so many manufacturing jobs back to america. and i know there are elitists in america who say, well, yeah, but those manufacturing jobs, those are not for classy countries like america. no, we've evolved upward into a service economy.

we provide elegant services, we're not into manufacturing goods. we leave that to more developing nations. when the historical fact is clear, any powerful nation that cannot manufacture what it needs in a time of war will not be a powerful nation past the next war. just as jesus assured there will always be wars and rumors of wars, we have to be aware, as long as we're in this world, we have to protect our country, protect our -- protect ourselves, and some, doesn't matter, if you're a christian or not a christian, those who are christian, sometimes say, oh, yeah, but, jesus said we got to love our neighbors as ourselves, we got to -- blessed are the meek, sermon on the mount and all. and that is absolutely the way

christians are supposed to live. but when they are acting as the government, we're to be mindful of romans. romans 13. the government is to be an encourager of good conduct. we're not supposed to design programs to lure people away from their productivity. lure them away from their potential. and that wonderful, awesome feeling of multiple employers wanting you to come work for them. too many young people have never experienced that. i really believe with the major tax cut like we have passed in the house, there will be more and more young people that will know that feeling. such a gratifying feeling when multiple firms want you to work for them. you decide whether you want to be on your own, start your own business, it's just an awesome

feeling. the economy has struggled so, never hit 3% fwreth in any year in the last eight and now we've had two months back-to-back where we hit over 3% growth. we can do that. we are going to bring in more federal revenue, even with the lower taxes. going to be great for america. people are going to see what it's like to have more companies wanting you. grips do need to come to with the number of people we're allowing in this country both illegally and legally. no country in the world allows a million people to come into its country legally like the united states does. we allow that many legally.

and i happen to be helping a fellow texan, immigrated from mexico, been here on visas legally for 15 years. she's trying to get her citizenship. she's done everything she can legally. but it gets really frustrating for someone from mexico who is following the rules, following the law, doing everything according to american law. that's the kind of person we want to come here. has respect for the law. we're helping her try to get her citizenship. but the -- unfortunately that part of our government is only now looking at applications from september of last year. hoping not to have to get yet

another visa, surely this greatest nation in the world could move faster on applications for citizenship and visas, surely we could at least work as fast as third world nations that don't have computers. but apparently in some cases we don't. we owe it to all of those who have sought to come into america legally and to all of those who were born here, at least born here and are american citizens. the children of diplomats that are born in the united states are not u.s. citizens. originally, when the 14th amendment passed, go back and look at the debate back at the time, the advocate for the 14th amendment were saying obviously there will be people who are -- who have children born in america whose children will not

be citizens. and they contemplated that would be diplomats from foreign countries that are in this country legally. as diplomats of foreign countries. their children would not be citizens. and they're not. they also contemplated that if you snuck into this country illegally that certainly your children would not be citizens. that would be insane. and yet what they thought would be insane is the way things have been interpreted for far too long and we ought to be able to say, who can come into the country legally and approve anybody that comes in whether legally or illegally for citizenship on our own terms. that's the way it needs to be. if we're going to perpetuate this amazing blessing of a

country, i didn't deserve to be born here but i was. and if we're going to continue to be a light on the hill that so many hundreds of millions of people around the world want to come to, then we can't let hundreds of millions of people come here or it would overwhelm the country and it would no longer be a place anybody wanted to come and at that point, the greatest hope for peace in the world, the united states, would cease to be the united states we've come to know and love. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous con -- consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is

recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank you and i want to extend my courtesies to the gentleman from texas for his courtesy as well, mr. green. i stand here today because this is world aids day. since 1988 we have commemorated world aids day. i have on my lapel, if you will, on my shawl a red ribbon which symbolizes remembrance. earlier today i called in to the thomas free clinic as i have celebrated with them for many years. while i was in washington i did not want to give them the against on as fighters hiv-aids. h.i.v. aids has affected many around the world before the disease even made its way to america's shores. countless researchers, health care providers, politicians and educators have contributed to

the global initiative to contain and eventually eliminate its presence in all corns of the world. i remember going to zambia on the first presidential trip dealing with hiv-aids around the world. 38.6 million people worldwide live with hi at the end of 2005. and more than 25 million having died of aids since 1981. december we remember them. that's what this day is a day of remembrance. an estimated one million to 1.1 million h.i.v. positive individuals live in the united states and approximately 56,000 new infections occur a year. mr. speaker, my district is mpacted. 22 thourblings people. texas is impacted. today is a day of remembrance to honor those we lost and commit to those we fight for. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the

gentleman from texas, mr. green is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the nert leader. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the leadership for this opportunity. i greatly appreciate any opportunity to stand here in the well of the congress of the united states of america. i rise today, mr. speaker, because i do love my country. persons touse i want know that there are certain things that are not being presented properly. and one of the things that's not being presented properly as it relates to impeachment is the notion that a president has to commit a crime to be impeached. i'd like to talk about this for a moment and then address some of the issues associated with impeachment. a president doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached.

article 2, section 4 of the constitution of the united states of america is where we find information, you will, on impeachment. and it is stated in article 2, section 4, that a president can be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. mr. speaker, it's important to note that a misdemeanor is defined as a misdeed. there is a definition associated with criminality. but when the frame offerings -- framers of the constitution decided impeachment would be a remedy for a president who might styled a runaway president, they decided that misdemeanor would mean misdeed. in fact, we have had a president impeached for a misdeed.

andrew johnson in 1868, president. was impeached for the high misdemeanor, misdeed if you will, of saying things that were unkind about congress. he commit nod crime. he breached no statute. he spoke ill will of congress. and as such he was impeached in article 10 of the articles of impeachment that were placed against him. i'd like to share some intelligence from some others who have spoken on this issue. gene healy has spoken on the issue, he's with the cato institute, and his article is styled "the overcriminalization of impeachment." in this article, he states explicitly on the second page for those who might have a copy of it, i have filed this with

the house previously, that impeachable offenses aren't limited to crimes. and he indicates that that's settled quite well among constitutional scholars. he also goes on to say that had the framers restricted impeachment to statutory offenses, they'd have rendered the power a nullity from the start. in the early republic there were very few crimes and certainly not enough to cover the range of misdeeds, important word, misdeeds that would rightly disqualify public officials from continued service. misdeeds. misdemeanors. e goes on to say that it's important to get this straight. because confusing impeachment with a criminal process can be

harmful to our political health. it may lead us to stretch criminal law to get the president or his associates warping its future applications to ordinary citizens. it is important we get this straight. because a crime obviously can be an impeachable offense but it can also be something a person is not impeached for. a president is not impeached for, depending on the severity, i suppose, but a president can also be impeached for the misdeeds committed while in office. one of the thing mrs. healy addresses i'd like to point out that's important as to why it relates to why we have this belief that a president must be impeached for a crime is this. unfortunately, we have

outsourced the investigative function associated with impeachment to some other body. to some independent agency. to the justice department, if you will. . in so doing we've given the impression that this is something that involves a crime. but the framers of the constitution thought long and hard about this. and they saw that there could be the appearance of impropriety if we allowed the executive branch to investigate itself. in the sense that the justice department is a part of the executive branch. so do you really want the executive branch investigating the president, who is the chief executive officer? there are times such as what we have now when you have the executive outsourcing the actual investigation to a third party.

and my suspicion is that this can work quite well. but we should not conclude that because it is working, that because there is some functionality that seems to be positive for some, negative for others, we shouldn't conclude that because it appears to be working that this is the only way that it can be done. we shouldn't conclude that at the end of an investigation, if there is no finding of criminality, that an impeachment cannot go forward. because notwithstanding the findings of a special investigator or a special body that is assigned the task of investigating, we should not conclude that if there is not a finding of criminality, that we cannot go forward with an impeachment. as a matter of fact, we can go forward with an itch peoplement while a body -- impeachment while a body is performing this function, while a body is investigating. we can go forward before there

is an investigation by a body. we can go forward after there's an investigation. the house of representatives is the place where impeachment takes place. any member of the house of representatives can bring articles of impeachment and these articles of impeachment will have to be brought before the entirety of the house of representatives. impeachment is not limited to crimes committed, and a member can bring articles of impeachment based upon the harm that a president is imposing upon society by virtue of the president's acts, behavior, misdeeds, if you will. the president can be impeached without committing a crime. i had the good fortune of being on a program with chris hayes last night. he is the host.

and he mentioned an article that is written by ezra kline. and it is styled, the case for normalizing impeachment. impeaching an unfit president has consequences. but leaving one in office could be worse. in this article that he has written on the very last page, he indicates that, and by the way, i would commend this to persons to read in its entirety, but i am, for need of time, going to limit myself to excerpts. he indicates that impeachment is not a power we should take lightly. nor is it one we should treat as too explosive. there will be presidents who are neither criminals nor mental incompetents, but who are wrong for the role, who pose a danger to the country and the world.

this is true. it can happen. i'll say more about the possibilities in just a moment. then there is the article that i would commend to persons from "the times." . u.k. newspaper and it indicates that m.p.'s accused donald trump of spreading evil over britain first retweets. this is an article that i highly commend. because it speaks of how things can extend beyond our borders that start within our borders. i will read some of the excerpts. it reads, the prime minister said that britain first, whose twitter posts the president retweeted, was a hateful organization that seeks to

spread division and mistrust among communities. she said, the group stood in opposition to britain, british value of respect, tolerance and decency and stressed that british muslims were peaceful, law-abiding people who have themselves been victims of attack, of terror by the far right. she went on to indicate, serving notice to mr. trump that she would not shy away from tackling his actions ught misguided, she said. the fact that we work together does not mean that we are afraid to say when we think the united states have got it wrong.

and to be very clear with them, i am very clear that retweeting from britain first was the wrong thing to do. we have been criticized greatly for the retweet that was inaccurate. a retweet that quite frankly could have been vetted. when you're the president of the united states of america, you have access to intelligence about things happening around the world. you can validate, you can verify, you can vet things that are presented to you. the president has access to the greatest intelligence operation in the world. and could easily vet before tweeting. the information that was retweeted was not entirely correct. and was hateful. it was designed to insight hate. and should not be the kind of

thing that a president would retweet. i'd like to also read an article from foreign policy. this article is styled, this is how every genocide begins. this is by daniel altman. and he indicates that donald trump's retweeting anti-muslim propaganda videos -- excuse me just a moment, please. i seem to be catching something, so please tolerate me, if you ould, mr. speaker. the elixir of life, water. again, donald trump's retweeting of anti-muslim propaganda videos is the most un-american thing he has done as president.

d he goes on to explain that we have to remove this president and his administration as soon as possible. and we have to do it by legal means. upholding the foundations of our democracy. we cannot expect help from the president's silent cabinet or his toadies in congress who seem more interested in maintaining their own power than saying a word against him. we have to use the only branch of government left to us, the court. now, he and i differ on this point. i do believe we can still bring articles of impeachment. but he concludes by saying this. the president is trying to nerate panic against muslims in america, and i'm paraphrasing. clearly putting them at risk of mob violence.

and he says he hopes that he will face the full force of the law before it's too late. i might also go back a page or two and read this from this article. he indicates that the first thing that is done when we are going to move towards some sort of mob violence is to target the group that has been -- target a group by demonizing it through a campaign of hateful misinformation. he goes on to say, this is presented by -- as legitimate information by people in positions of trust. this article i commend to persons as well. now, moving forward to our current situation. it is my opinion, mr. speaker, that a president who is unmindful of the high duties of

his high office, a president who is unmindful of the dignities and proprieties thereof, a shame nt who has brought and disrepute upon the presidency, who has breached his trust as president to the manifest injury of american society such that he creates hate and hostility, this president who so hes these seeds of discord -- sows these seeds of discord, this kind of president should be impeached. it is by opinion that a president who demeans a member of congress, as one example, who indicates that a member of congress performing duties as a member of congress, duties that were associated with a constituent, that such a member of congress is whacky.

a president saying that a member of congress is whacky creates circumstances for the member of congress that are, to be very kind, quite unpleasant. a president doing this to a member of congress has caused a great deal of concern. the member of congress has had threats made. the member of congress has had , with on extra security great care protect the staff. this is the kind of thing that we don't expect a member of congress to have to do as a result of something a president might say. a president who indicates that there will be a ban on muslims coming into our country. a president should not single out a religious group and indicate that they should be

banned from a country. indoing this, the president singles out people such that those who aref ill will will look upon them asersons to be treated with some degree of disrespect and even harm. a president who talks about persons who have signed up to serve inur military and who have not done anything dishonorable, but who says that because they are transgender persons, they are persons who are not acceptable. in the military. this sends a signal to people that insights people to believe that the president sees these persons as less than persons who should be in the military, persons who should be treated in some way other than respectful as members of the military. a president who calls the mothers of persons who are professional athletes s.o.b.'s

is the term that was used, the b meaning that those persons were dogs, the mothers. calling them -- the athletes themselves son of dogs. such a president is a person who is sewing seeds of discord. such a president is a person who is inciting people to behave in a manner such that they would be antithetical to those persons who are the sons of persons that he has labeled as dogs. this is inappropriate behavior for a president. a president who concludes that persons who are members of the k.k.k., persons who are neo-nazis, call themselves the premises, such persons when they are said to be very fine people is a means of legitimatizing

people who are hateful, who are bigots. persons who have ill will for others in society simply because of who the others are. a president should not legitimatize them by calling them very fine people. a president who believes that people of a given country who are citizens of the united states of america but a president who indicates they, these people, want others to do things for them that they should be doing themselves, or that they are a drain on the budget because they have been the slims of a force of nature. a president who says these kinds of things sends a signal that indicates that these persons are not persons who are the best that we have in american society. because they are citizens.

puerto ricans are citizens. a president who does this is a president who is sowing seeds of mistrust, sowing seeds of discord. a president should not sow seeds of mistrust and discord. a president ought to be a unifying force within a country. a president ought to be the person that we look toward -- look to for some sense of stability. a president ought to be about the business of keeping a country together rather than creating chasms within various persons and groups within a society. this is what young people expect of a president. young people who are witnessing a president do things that bring about distrust and sow the seeds of discord are seeing something that is unyoorble. something that is not normal. and we don't want them to assume

that what they are seing is the norm. as a matter of fact, we need to let them know that this is not the norm. so mr. speaker, i want to make it clear that these kinds of activities that create hate and hostility, that sow seeds of discord, these are impeachable. these are the kinds of things that the framers of the constitution had in mind when they created article 2, section 4 of the constitution. this is what alexander hamilton had in mind when he penned federalist 65. hamilton so much as indicated that impeachment would create a lot of discord within society. the act itself. he indicated it could be very par part -- very partisan he indicated there would be rancor. probably not in that specific term but he indicated that people would be discombobulated to a great extent. and in so doing, he also went on

to let us know that it's something that is necessary. it's something that has to happen when you have a president who has committed misdeeds such that that president can be removed from office and it does not have to be for a crime. this is something that constitutional scholars recognize but it is also something that some people, for whatever reason do, not acknowledge. they don't acknowledge it for reasons that i will allow them to explain. but the constitutional scholars who have delved into this to levels that most people don't have acknowledged that presidents don't have to be impeached for crimes only. as a matter of fact, john pickering in 1804, who was subject to impeachment, he was a federal judge, he was impeached and he committed no crime that

was noted in the articles of impeachment. he was impeached for being intemperate. as i indicated earlier, and i think some things bear repeating, andrew johnson was impeached in 1868 and in the 10th article of the articles of impeachment it was alleged that he demeaned congress. he said bad things about kuok. and as a result, he was impeached. now, no president has been convicted. impeachment is within the province of the house of representatives. a majority of the members voting to impeach, a president is then impeached and the action moves to the senate where there is a trial in the senate. presided over by the chief justice of the supreme court. if the president is found guilty, then the president is impeached and can be removed from office.

the impeachment is validated and the president can be removed from office. but impeachment is something that occurs in the house of representatives. and it is something that each member can bring before the house of representatives. it is a responsibility that a member of congress can assume by virtue of being a member of congress and concluding that a president has committed impeachable offenses. these impeachable offenses, excuse me, these impeachable offenses need not be crimes. i keep emphasizes this -- emphasizing this because that's what this time is to be used efficaciously for. we want people to know, in no uncertain terms, that a president does not have to commit crimes to be impeached, that any of the 435 members of the house of representatives, can bring articles of

impeachment before the body. and when these articles of impeachment are brought before the body, the house has to act. how does the house have to act? the house of representatives will allow the articles to be read once. once they are read, there's a time set for them to be read a second time. i read articles of impeachment earlier and i chose not to read them the second time and as a result they were not read and as a result of not being read, the articles were not acted upon by the body. this is something every member can do. and by the way, when i did it, i did it as a result of my conscious decision to do so without any influence from any person on the planet earth. it was a decision that was made before i came without any influence from any person. i'm say this with the emphasis i

place upon it because there is some misinformation. i'm not offended by me misinformation, i just want to correct the record. these things get confused and i understand it, most people are not familiar with how this process works but moving along. once the time is set for the second reading, the articles are read the second time. and thereafter, the articles may be voted up or down or there may be a request made that the articles be sent to a committee and if so, a majority of the body concludes that they should go to committee, then they will. or there can be a motion or a request made to table the articles. and if they are tables, they will be tabled and likely not to be brought back before the body again. but if they are allowed to be voted up or down, if a majority f the members cob collude that

impeachment is appropriate and say so by their vote, saying yes, by their vote, then the president would be impeached. and it would go to the senate. and the senate -- in the senate you have to have a 2/3 vote to convict. but, if the request is to table the articles of impeachment, favor ose who do not impeachment can vote to table. because if you vote to table and that is successful then you don't have to vote to impeach. those who do not favor impeachment can vote to have the articles sent to a committee, the judiciary committee if they don't favor impeachment, vote to send it to judiciary committee and there won't be a vote on impeachment. there could be other reasons i don't want to conclude that only -- the only reason a person

would vote to table is because the person doesn't within to vote to impeach. but these are the reasons that are ostensibly viewed as reasons for not voting for these various motions that can be made. i desire if i bring articles of impeachment, my desire will have -- will be to have the articles voted up or down. and if they are voted up or down, that would accord everyone an opportunity to show the world where they stand on the question before the house, which of course would be impeachment. if they -- if a motion is made to table or request to table, i will vote against that because i support impeachment. if a motion is made to send to committee, i will vote against that. because i favor impeachment. this is important not only to me but to my country. this is not about democrats. it really is not.

it's about the democracy. it's about government of the people, by the people, for the people. it's about the republic. it's not about republicans. it's about whether we'll be able to retain the republic that we have and many will recall that franklin called that to our attention that we have a republic, when the he addressed a certain person, and indicated you have one, if you can keep it. this is about keeping the republic, mr. speaker. it's not about democrats and not about republicans. about them in the sense that they are part of the house and they'll all have an opportunity cast volts but it's not about something as tissue as simple as politics as usual. this is something to be taken seriously. i do take it seriously. it is something that the country is monitoring. the country, when polled,

indicates its position on impeachment. and that position has been at 40%. some a little above, some below, depending on who is polling and 40u you with -- how you poll, i suppose. but the country is aware of what's going on. people are paying attention. and we do have a duty to bring before this body what we in good conscience believe is appropriate. good conscience is a good term. i believe in good conscience that there is a time to bring mpeachment before this body. excuse me, again, mr. speaker. i believe in good conscience that there is a time to bring impeachment before this body. i have expressed my position, it's no secret. people know where i stand. people know.

that i as a member of the congress of the united states of america, i have made a position quite public. excuse me just a minute, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker. as i indicated, people know what my position is. been ow that i have straightforward. i've not been nebulous. i have not been shy. i believe what i say and i say what i believe. i believe that this country should not allow discord to emanate from the highest office in the land. i believe that this country should not allow the chief

executive officer to incite hate , should not allow the chief executive officer to incite hostility. i believe that the chief executive officer ought to be a unifying force in our great country. and i believe that if america is going to continue its greatness and move forward without persons or are labeled as wacky persons being seen as less than other americans by virtue of their religious practices or because of their sexuality, i believe that we have a duty when we believe that there is an impeachable offense, and we should bring this before the congress of the united states of america.

i am honored to serve the people of the ninth congressional district of texas. the ninth congressional district of texas is in houston. and i'm honored to serve the people of houston as well as missouri city and statford. i'm honored to serve. but i'm a united states congressman. and the constitution of the united states of america addresses all of the people within the united states of america. so when i bring my views to the floor, when i stand in the well and make my comments, i'm speaking for the people of the ninth congressional district but i'm also speaking for a good many people in the united states of america. a good many people in the united states of america are of the opinion, mr. speaker, that impeachment is not only appropriate, but necessary. therefore, mr. speaker, i'd like

to announce that next week here in the congress of the united states of america i will bring articles of impeachment to present to this body such that donald j. trump will be impeached. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president.

the speaker pro tempore: the their is prepared to entertain a motion to adjourn. green grown i so move given there are no additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. .he ayes to the house stands adjourned until

the house will vote on monday on the process of merging the two bills into one. after that, both the house and senate would have to vote on the final, combined bill. in detroit today, michigan congressman john conyers has scheduled a news conference for 2:00 p.m. eastern. he's recently been accused of sexual harassment by several women who used to work for him. when his news conference gets under way we'll bring it to you lye here on c-span. -- live here on c-span. >> yesterday, house minority leader nancy pelosi reversed herself from earlier in the week and had this to say about representative john conyers, 88 years old, democrat in michigan. l assault allegations against him. [video clip]

pelosi: these are serious, disappointing, and very credible. so sad. the brave women who came forward are hoping for justice. i pray for commerce and conyers and his family and wish them well. however, congressman conyers should resign. congressman conyers has served in our congress for more than five decades and shaped to some of the most consequential legislation in the last 10 the means however, consequences for everyone. ,he matter how great the legacy that's no license to harass or discriminate. in fact, it makes it even more disappointing. yesterday, house took the first step mandating sexual harassment and discrimination training and that resolution on the floor. the next