tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN December 20, 2018 4:15pm-6:16pm EST
from homeowners, communities in my state and others to fund their massive giveaway to big corporations. the data is there. it is clear. it is succinct. it is definitive. republicans even bragged about using their tax scam to hurt new jersey and the region. imagine that. imagine running about deliberately hurting millions of people. my amendment would have destroyed this critical deduction but it was blocked. this bill before us today provides targeted relief to victims of disasters, but only a select few. there have been 13 disasters since we last held a committee hearing on a tax bill, and i don't see them listed here. not to mention the tax relief that victims of hurricane sandy never received in the first place. there is a bill that would provide disaster tax relief to all federally declared disaster areas automatically, which it
should be, so we don't have to play these partisan games of picking and choosing. if we want to help people, let's vote on it. there are provisions in this bill that i would have supported, but our chairman made no such attempt to reach us. . we had no witnesses, we had no hearings. how about that for democracy. instead, this is nearly $100 billion, it's unpaid for, you're very good at that, it's undebate, you think you know all the answers. and it's very, very partisan. so much for reaching out. and most important, it utterly ignores the needs of workers in this country. mr. speaker, you hear that general motors just announced 14,700 workers are losing their jobs. does this bill do anything to address that? no. in fact, the underlying tax bill
you're trying to fix today, remember bernie? did nothing to help those workers either. g.m. moves american jobs to china and mexico. they'll be paying a lower tax rate for the pleasure. from 21% to 10.%. >> i yield the gentleman one minute. mr. pascrell: thank you. we continue to let them deduct the cost. we allow them to deduct the cost of moving -- moving their operations overseas. how un-american do you get? we need to stop that. there is a bill, by the way, to do that, if you've noticed. if you can believe it, general motors saved more than $150 million so far this year thanks to your scam and they appear to have benefited by as much as $6 ppt 5 billion by the tax holiday offshore for offshore cash hidden in this g.o.p. bill.
the data is clear, mr. chairman. read it. yet here they are, shipping jobs overseas, just in time for the holidays. you might think after that they'd re-- after they were repudiated at the ballot box that they'd show humility, extend a hand to work with us. no, all you can do is smile and say it's here, don't worry about it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i'm proud to yield three minutes to the gentleman from innesota, mr. paulsen. mr. paulsen: i want to first speak in general of this tax package overall which includes some verying very good tax policy but i want to highlight specifically draw attention to one very important provision. a bipartisan provision. that's a further dely of the medical device tax for a
five-year period. my preference, mr. speaker, would have been to have a permanent repeal of the device tax but i understand you have to compromise on things. it's a good compromise. so five years is what we get. in a period of time when there are very few issues that a lot of policymakers unfortunately in congress can agree upon, there's no doubt there's been strong, bipartisan, broad-based support to repeal and eliminate a very bad policy put in place on the part of obamacare. this is about making sure that our nation, our country, america continues to lead the world in this important ecosystem that is central to improving patient care and also creating high quality jobs. we all know the medical device industry in america is truly an american success story. it's a minnesota success story. i can speak of 400,000 people around the country that are directly employed, i can speak to 35,000 folks employed in minnesota in this industry. and these are hundreds and hundreds of company, by the way,
mr. speaker, that i have had the chance to visit and tour, companies you've never heard of, they may have five me, 10 employee, but every single one has a doctor, entrepreneur, engineer looking to save lives. e tax caused the loss of 29,000 jobs as it was put in place. back last july, as members recall, the house voted overwhelmingly to permanently repeal this device tax with historic levels of support, republicans an democrats. nearly 300 members voted together to get rid of it. it's about protecting innovation. it's about protecting small business. 80% of medical device companies have less than 50 employees. 93% of these companies have less than 500 employees that have good, high-paying jobs. we're also a net exporter, exporting around the world in this industry. but the affordable care act, mr. speaker, did impose a new 2.3% excise tax on all medical
devices. doesn't sound like much but keep in mind this is not a tax on profits. it's a tax on your sales. it's a tax on your revenue, that's where we saw the negative impact because it takes eight to 10 yearers in companies to become profitable in the first place. they deal with f.d.a. regulations, they deal with reimbursement issues. this raised the bar, raise head the hurdle, made it more difficult for companies to become profitable in the first place. it's about getting predictability and certainty to the companies so they can continue to help innovate and help patients. that's what it's all about, making sure that life-saving products are coming to market and i visited and met with engineers and technicians and owners and entrepreneurs of these companies that work day in and day out, coming up with the ideas for the innovation that really makes america the forefront leader. i would encourage support for this bill, mr. speaker, it is a good compromise and it makes sense and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized.
>> i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, well known for her financial accruemen, congresswoman chu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. chu: i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 88. this bill contains a provision that can only be ke de-scribed as sneaky. it's an anti-choice provision that has no police in a tax bill. it tries to circumvent our superior court -- you are supreme court and redefine person by allowing parents to 529 539 education -- college savings for unborn children. they don't need to do that, they can open the account in their own name and change the name of after the child is born. but adding the words unborn
child, is an attempt to claim the fetus is legally separate the mother. this wording has appeared in republican tax bills before. they made no attempt to hide the reason for the inclusion. when it was in h.r. 1, the spokesman of march for life stated publicly we hope this is the first step in expanding the child tax credit to include unborn children as well. so this is an obvious attempt to lay the legal groundwork for undermining a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. it's an outright attack on women's reproductive rights. right before republicans must turn over control of the house to democrats and be -- and before the record number of congresswomen are sworn in, republicans are making a last-ditch effort to erode women's constitutional rights to control their own bodies in
order to score one last point for an extremist base. and all in a bill that they know is dead on arrival in the senate. mr. speaker, i strongly urge my colleagues to reject this bill and vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 6 47, an act to adjust the real estate appraisal threshold under the 7-a program to bring them into line with the thresholds used by this federal banking regulators and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i'm sorry, mr. speaker. i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from fle, mr. mast. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mast: i rise today, this is not a debate on education, but i am worried about the ability of my colleagues to add as we talk
about tax and the rates and terms thrown out about things like irresponsible and giveaways, i think it's incumbent that we reflect on those terms and what that means. when we think about the rates passed, you think about somebody's rate going from 15% down to 12%. or from 25% down to 22%. or from 28% down to 24%. and you think about that as an overall 10 percentage point move or you think about the top three brackets coming down from 39.6 down to 37 or going down another point below that. maybe a 3.6% decrease total on the top three bracket, 10% on the bottom four brackets. that's not an unequitable distribution of those tax cuts. you think about the term being thrown around when somebody says it's a giveaway. when somebody says it's a giveaway to allow somebody to keep more of their earnings,
what they're saying fundamentally is that a person earning -- a person's earnings don't belong to them, they belong to the federal government and the federal government can give those earnings back and that's not the truth. all the earn the work of somebody's hands, the fruits of somebody's labor, those are the earnings of the individual. and they're good enough to give the federal government some of those dollars to go out there and function. when you think about that term, irresponsible, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying is that it's irresponsible to allow somebody to keep more of the fruits of their labor. i rise in support of this bill. i encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reflect about the things that they're saying, the lies that they're literally out there saying. i hope they can work to go to work for the american people instead of going to work online. with that, i yield back the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. >> we dent object to the three brackets being lowered for the
middle class, we object that there were no hearings and the top brackets were reduced. doubling the estate tax exemption, cutting the top rate from 39.6 to 37? if utcht to do that for people at the end of the economic scale, we're. in with that, i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i think it's interesting to suggest that anyone who is telling an untruth when 24 hours ago this house committed to passing a c.r. to stop the government from being shut down and the united states senate passed it without objection to keep the government open. here we are now with the government on the verge of closing because the president owns it and we're talking about a bill that creates $53 billion in deficit and does not help the middle class and small businesses and has a pox on women as relates to choice. what kind of crisis are my friends trying to build a few
days before we rise to take leadership as majority in the 116th congress? so maybe we should have hearings but maybe we should stop this bill altogether and get back to keeping the government open and passing a continuing resolution so that the working people in all of these agencies including border patrol agents and other, can do their job. this is an insanity that keeps on growing. mr. president, let's stop doing this and keep the government open and let's have hearings on this tax bill to ensure that we do what is right for small businesses and working families and the women of america. with that, i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to direct their comments to the chair. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: could we have clarification of how much time is remaining on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 6 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from texas has 8 1/2 minutes.
mr. neal: i'd like to yield one and a half minutes to the screalt from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise in opposition to the bill and in particular opposition to section 407 which would essentially repeal the johnson amendment. the johnson amendment protects the integrity and independence of charities and houses of worship by ensuring they don't endorse or oppose political candidates. one characteristic of american religious institutions that made them so sacred is they are separate from government and separate from campaign politics. if americans want to get involved in po partisan elections we know how to do that but what we are seek wheng we attend church, synagogue, or any other house of worship is something different. this has long been reflected in how we treat our religious institutions differently.
current law strikes a careful balance and it's important to emphasize what houses of worship with tax exempt status can do. they are permitted to advocate for policies consistent with their values. they can help members become engaged in the political process by organizing events, registering voters and getting them to the polls. they just can't tell people who to vote for. it's no surprise that a wide array of religious organizations support the johnson amendment and oppose section 407 of this bill. out of understandable concern that political parties and candidates seeking power would be empowered to use their congress regations as tools and pressure them for endorsement. i think we can all agree americans have had enough of political partisanship, they do not want more of it and they don't want it in their houses of worship where so many seek refuge from the chaos of their day-to-day life. i urge a no vote on the bill for this and many other rep johns and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman
from kansas, mr. estes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. estes: this helps taxpayers. as one of the only former state treasurers in our office, i understand the need to adopt a culture of customer service and to help taxpayers file taxes, retrieve information, resolve issues and make payments. in addition to reforming the i.r.s., this bill also provides needed certainty to businesses by making certain -- certain tax cuts permanent and extending others so that families and businesses know what to expect from our tax code in the future. while our economy is booming, businesses of every size i meet with in my district in kansas consistently say that the number one thing they need from washington is certainty. we owe it to job creators and workers to provide that certainty so they can plan for future expansions and other
decisionmaking. to support workers and families, this bill makes it easier for businesses to provide retirement plans for more employees who previously didn't have access to them and allows families to save more for retirement. to support entrepreneurs and small businesses, this bill will allow new companies to write off more of their initial startup costs and allows with s to not get hit taxes. and it helps impacts impacted by recent wildfires, hurricanes, by allowing victims to access retirement accounts without penalty. as i said in a recent op-ed in fox news, the retirement savings and other tax relief act of 2018 is the right bill at the right time for america's families and economy. passing the tax cuts and jobs act started and economic turn-around our country has not experienced in decades.
instead of stopping that momentum in its tracks, we need to build upon that success with these commonsense reforms. i want to thank chairman brady and the ways and means committee for continuing to find solutions to grow our economy and help families. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. i would like to inquire if the gentleman from texas has any further speakers and if not i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. so the holy grail of the tax cut was the constant references to the stock market. that's what we heard for the last year. i wonder about some of our members if they want to compare their foik to what it was like -- 401-k to what it was like in october, 2008 rges or as we continue to witness that constant reference to the stock
market, the stock market. at the end of 2017, the stock market, the dow jones was 24,719. his afternoon at 22,859. i call attention to that because of the chaotic nature in which this legislative body has functioned. hearings, no witnesses, legislation crafted, we don't know where, brought to the floor, and then referenced as the achievement of a rising stock market. so here we are again without one single hearing, rushing through another tax package that's not offset and doubles down on the original law's skewed benefits for people at the top. again, without a markup or a single hearing. a rushed process resulted in a failed product. and now they want to duplicate that process with these changes proposed here today.
the bill includes a number of provisions that could have been reconciled by our side including references that mr. kelly made to retirement benefits. we're all in. but the hit on nonprofits -- by the way, taking away benefits for parking for some of the nonprofits is but another example of how this legislation actually lacked substance. we could do much better. and i certainly want to encourage colleagues to oppose this legislation on process and policy and just as i yield back, we on both sides here are very fortunate to have exceptional tax advisors in terms of the staff members and i want to thank karen for her work as the chief tax counsel as she moves to her new role in my office as well. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to be able to say merry christmas to all, but this tax bill does not help my enthusiasm, but i'll still say merry christmas to all.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: so today what we've heard is -- our feelings are hurt. they're really, really hurt. this didn't go through regular order. and so our feelings are really hurt. those who oppose this say, look, trying to help had families that are damaged by our disasters, thousands of them. i imagine those families who are looking at their homes that are charred and burnt and families who are living on the second floor of their home, has been wiped out, i bet they'd like some regular order to their life, you know, i bet they'd like things to go back to normal. i bet they'd like to spend their holidays back in their home. not warm up here in congress,
trying to find solutions. we're told it's shameless to help those who are victims of disaster in alabama and california and florida and georgia, hawaii, and in north carolina. it's shameless to help you. we can't be bothered, is what opponents are saying today. in south carolina and texas, virginia, wisconsin, american samoa, guam, northern mariana islands, we're busy, opponents are told. we got holidays. we can't help. i believe we ought to help. every one of us, republicans, democrats, ought to provide this key disaster tax relief those families and communities need. we're told it's reckless to help families and businesses to save more and earlier in life. we know we are not a nation of savers. we have to do more to help them. we used to do that in a bipartisan way. we can do that today. we're told we never heard of a bill that reins in the i.r.s., redesigns them to taxpayer-first agency, protects
our personal data. yet, that bill passed this house 414-0, because we had leaders like lynn jenkins of kansas, john lewis of georgia who worked together along with the senate to do really thoughtful work together, both parties gave and took and found a good solution. that's in this bill. we're told that we ought not delay these obamacare taxes but republicans, democrats, together have worked to do this in the past and president obama signed them as well. then, we're finally told that there is an attack on women's reproductive rights. here's what it is. in this bill we allow when you find out you're pregnant, you want to get a little head start, to start saving for your child's education, like preschool, kindergarten, elementary, get a head start on saving for trade school or for college, we're told that somehow that's an attack on reproductive rights. it's a head start.
just for families that want to save a little more, get one more year, because today you have to actually open an account in someone else's name, transfer it later. we say, look, get a head start. if you want to start saving, we're with you. do your very best for your child. we think that's important. at the end of the day i think we ought to put aside this temper tantrum and come together to help a lot of families in our country who need this help. my guess is, if our democrat friends get their way and manage to obstruct, they'll take all these elements right back up at the beginning of the year. you know, it will be their idea and their credit. look, i'll give you credit right now for it. i just think we ought to help people today and we ought not break for any you holidays until we've really done the work that these people deserve. and as long as we're talking about people who deserve our appreciation, i want to thank our chief tax counsel, barbara
angus, who's done just a remarkable job leading an amazing tax subcommittee and staff who've done such remarkable work for the american people and for us over the past three years. i want to thank the staff director of our oversight subcommittee who has done remarkable work, this whole team, in a bipartisan way reforming the i.r.s. stephanie parks in the health area, a.c.a. taxes. again, mikayla carr, our general counsel who shepherded this to the floor today. bottom line, there are lots of ways to work together to help the american people, especially those in need right now. this has bipartisan work, bipartisan thoughts. let's join together and help the american people. i urge a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1180, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion
by the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. without objection -- mr. neal: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: with hurt feelings, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1183, resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 695, to amend the national child protection act of 1993 to establish a voluntary national criminal history background check system and criminal history review program for certain individuals who, related to their employment, have access to children, the elderly or individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore:
referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 183 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the esolution. the clerk: house calendar 199, house resolution 1183, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 695, to amend the national child protection act of 1993, to establish a voluntary national criminal history background check system, and criminal history review program for certain individuals who, related to their employment, have access to children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities and for other purposes. with the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment thereto and to consider in the house without
intervention of any point of order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of rules committee print 115-88, the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one hour. mr. cole: mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cole: mr. speaker, today, the rules committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the further additional continuing appropriations act of 2019. the rule provides for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the appropriations committee. mr. speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the fourth appropriation package to fully fund the government for fiscal year 2019. while the congress has completed its work with respect to almost 75% of total discretionary spending, including notably the department of defense, health and human services, education, labor, roughly 25% of discretionary spending remains outstanding. today's bill will provide a short-term continuing resolution to february 8, 2019, to ensure that the entirety of the federal government remains open and operating while the congress continues to work. .
i've said on numerous occasions on this floor and else where that continuing resolutions are not the best way to fund the government but allowing the government to shut down even in part is much costlier and much worse. it's our obligation to our constituents to keep all the government open and operating and to provide needed services. mr. speaker, from an appropriations perspective, this year has been remarkably successful. earlier this year we sent five of the 12 appropriations bills to the president for his signature before the beginning of the fiscal year. that's the best record in 22 years. with the hard work and from both sides of the aisle and both houses of congress, our earlier efforts represented a return to regular order. this is a normal legislative process. for us to drop the ball now at the end of the year, at the end of congress, would negate much of the good work that has already been done this year.
as i've said so often on the floor the primary obligation of congress is to fund the american government and keep it open and operating. the american people deserve no less. with this package under consideration today, congress will do just that with respect to seven of the 12 remaining bills. agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration and the related agencies, commerce, justice, science and related agency, financial services and the general government, homeland security, interior, environment and related agencies, state, foreign operations, and related program, and finally the transportation, housing, and urban development and related agencies. as my colleagues can see from this list the group of bills covers a wide array of government programs the american people rely upon. it includes key departments like the department of homeland security, food and drug administration, the border patrol and the state department.
it covers services like funding roads, operating security check points at airports, passport service, food inspection service, importation and exportation of goods and service, banking services, and thousands of other important government functions. an perhaps just as importantly, it covers approximately 800,000 employees, about half of whom would need to be furloughed and about half of whom would likely be deemed essential and be required to work without a guarantee of pay. while continuing resolutions are in no way, shape, or form the best way to do business, the measure before us today will at least ensure that the government remains open and operating and will continue to provide the needed services for our nation and our constituents. i look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming weeks to complete our work on the funding of government for fiscal year 2019. importantly this bill also includes funding for disaster relief and to secure the border. the american people have made
their voices heard. and they've told us time and time again they want additional border security. to that end, this bill appropriates $5 billion for the purpose of securing the border. finally, mr. speaker, this bill also appropriates $7. billion for disaster relief. as we've seen time and again in places like new orleans, after the hurricane -- after hurricane karina, east coast after hurricane sandy, my own hometown of moore, oklahoma, after devastating tornadoes, disasters require a helping hand by appropriating these funds -- a helping hand. by appropriating these funds we offer our fellow american who was been afflicted by disasters the help they need and require. mr. speaker, i urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.
the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from oklahoma for the customary 3 minutes and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: let me begin by thanking my colleague from oklahoma for the work he and other appropriators did to try to keep the government running. and we are here right now not because of the appropriators, we are here right now because donald trump has made a mess of things. mr. speaker, it is surreal that we are here today. days before the end of a congress. hours before a quarter of the federal government runs out of money. scrambling to keep the lights on at the brink of the third republican government shutdown this year. because we're not dealing with divided government. republicans today control not only this chamber but also the senate and the white house. they have been fighting among themselves for weeks over
whether and how to keep the government of the united states open for business. it would be comical fit wasn't so serious. this proposal that we are being given right now is not a solution. it is a political temper tantrum. all to please one man. the person sitting at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. it doesn't solve disagreements of the chamber or the senate and doesn't prevent the shutdown america is facing. this president and this majority ran on fear during the last election. fear of immigrants. fear of those seeking asylum. fear of anyone that doesn't look exactly like them. and what happened, mr. speaker? they were resoundingly rejected. the american people chose a different course. they don't want a government that reacts only to the wants of the president's ever-shrinking base. the small segment of society who
actually supports his offensive border wall. now let me remind my colleagues according to polling, americans by a 2-1 margin want the president to compromise on the wall to avoid a shutdown. this proposal is exactly what the president may want but precisely what the american people reject the senate passed a bipartisan continuing resolution to keep the lights on. this house was prepared to pass it nell president's latest outburst. governing by tweet isn't governing at all. if the president's most senior advisors are fox and friends and rush limbaugh, maybe we shouldn't be surprised when we find ourselves here today. but this morning, this house came together to pass same-day authority so that the majority could move quickly on a bipartisan shoverple continuing resolution. democrats joined our republican colleagues in this effort to provide the tools needed to keep
the lights on. and this is how you're using them? this isn't a serious plan. to even vote for disaster relief, this bill requires you to support the president's offensive wall. democrats and the american people have already rejected this false choice. this wall is a medieval solution to a 21st century problem. what's next, mr. speaker? money for a mote around mar-a-lago? this will not become law, what we're ding right now. this is a waste of time. it even -- if it even passes here which is a big if, it's dead on arrival in the senate. i would say to my friends, the clock is ticking. let's get to work on a clean bill that can make it to the president. this isn't that. this is just offensive. and again let me remind those in this chamber, the senate in a bipartisan way, came together,
by a voice vote, and supported a continuing resolution a clean c.r., to keep the government running for seven weeks. that's it. that's all we're proposing here today. and this chamber can't even do that. this is a disgrace and i urge my colleagues to reject it. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i want to make a couple of comments before i recognize my friend from alabama and fellow rules committee member for three minutes, let me just quickly point out that we're really talking about border security here. this clearly isn't simply a wall. frankly there's not enough money involved here. s that matter of providing additional security. important to note, the border patrol union itself fully supports what the president is trying to do. these are the types of things they've asked us to provide them so they can provide us with the security we task them to give to the american people. the disaster relief is something
i think probably both sides should be able to agree on. we know there's a genuine disaster. we've had fires, we've got hurricane relief. i have a detailed summary here of all the various items that would be taken care of, be more than happy to provide that to my friend. that's something we should do before we go home. that's something frankly americans have a right to count on. i remember and i was with my friends in this endeavor, during the sandy debate. and how desperately we needed aid at that point in time. and how severely the action was when congress went home and then -- without getting that done and came back in january. and i think the reaction was appropriate. so this disaster relief is extraordinarily important and i hope that we focus on that in our debate as well. with that, mr. speaker, i would like to yield, if i may, three minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from alabama, a fellow member of the rule committees, mr. byrne.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. byrne: i want to add my support to this rule. mr. speaker, when did protecting the american people, knowing who is entering our country, and having a secure border become so kind of radical or partisan idea? i'm stunned to see the length to which some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will go simply to oppose enhanced border security including a border wall. in fact it seems they're willing to shut down the federal government instead of supporting president trump's urgent request for $5 billion to fund the border wall. what is especially strange is that some of mir colleagues on this other side have already supported a wall in the past. some have even voted in support of a border wall. what has changed? i think the answer is very simple. i think some of my colleagues are so committed to appeasing the so-called resistance that they find themselves opposing a very basic and commonsense idea
like border security just because they want to earn points the most extreme part of their political base. this is not a complicated issue. this is about the safety and security of the american people. this is about keeping terrorists out of our country. this is about keeping illegal drugs out of our country. this is about keeping criminals out of our country. this shouldn't be hard. why am i so passionate about this? because this is a critical issue. when i talked to the people i represent back in alabama, they are passionate about it. this is one of the top issues i hear about at events and town halls throughout alabama. in fact the phones in my office have been ringing all day with people urging us to stand strong, secure our borders, and build the wall. mr. speaker, i think this is a fight worth fighting. i think pushing to ensure the safety of the american people is worthy and is absolutely a critical fight. so i urge my colleagues to stop
playing to the resistance, come back toward the commonsense idea like securing our border, pass this amendment, pass the funding bill and ensure the safety of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: if i thought for one second that building a stupid wall would somehow secure our borders i'd be for it. but every expert i've talked to, including people on the border, say they need more personnel. say we ought to invest more in electronic equipment to surveil our borders. i don't know if a -- of a wall that's ever been built that people haven't climbed over or dug under. this is ridiculous. by the way, when the president campaigned, he said he wanted to build a wall and mexico was going to pay for it now he wants to build a wall that by all accounts is going to be useless in terms of protecting our borders and he wants the american tax payers to pay for it. $5 billion, how about rebuilding our reds an bridges that are crumbling in this country? if you get $5 billion you don't
care what you do with, how about investing it in affordable housing? or how about dealing with the issue of climate change or how about making sure that some of the 40 million-plus americans in if this country who don't have enough to eat have food. wasting money on something so ridiculous is offensive. so we want border security, we're happy to work with you on enhanced border security, but this isn't it. this is a campaign slogan. this is a waste of taxpayer money. it is ridiculous. it is embarrassing. and for the president to want to shut down the government over this, is disgraceful. by the way on the disaster package, just so my colleagues understand this, this disaster package, the disaster package in this bill does not include $600 million in nutrition assistance for puerto rico. so unless this congress takes immediate action, 1.4 million of our fellow citizens in puerto rico stand to suffer deep cuts in food assistance. causing many of them to go
hungry. that is shameful. where is the help for them? of course we should pass a clean c.r. to ensure that our government remains open. but my friend talked about disaster assistance and i just wanted to point out that one thing that is missing in their disaster package is this nutrition money for our fellow citizens of puerto rico. i'm sure there are others. we're rushing this thing through, you know, there's no transparency here. we thought we had a deal to keep the government open for seven weeks and then all of a sudden i guess the president tuned in to fox and friends and changed his mind. you can't -- you don't know where this president is going to be day-to-day or hour to hour or minute to minute but he's the guy who said that he'd be proud to own a shutdown. well, i think it would be a disaster for this country to have another shutdown. i think it would be expensive. and i think we ought to do everything we can to avoid it.
that's why we ought to send a clean c.r. back to the senate with. that, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i want to make a couple of comments in regard to some of the statements my good friend made. . we are talking about $3.3 billion. the senate bill that frankly was passed actually added $1.7 the admission that physical barriers do make -- it would not build an entire wall. quite the opposite. it would just provide some physical barriers at points along the border that are weak and need additional security. my friend says nobody is interested in this. frankly, the border security unions are. the border patrol has endorsed the president's proposal. they tell -- the men and women we tambing to defend our --
task to defend our borders tell us this is something they need. they said they would support a government shutdown. i've never been for government shutdown. but this is not an extraordinary amount of money in a bill, frankly, that totals well over $250 billion when you add up all the spending. and being able to put additional security there is important. so my friend's point about puerto rico. i think that's a good point. i think that's a fair point to make, and probably we should go back and take a look at that. i do know that americans, you know, desperately need assistance in a variety of various, puerto rico included, that help is necessary, agriculture help, help for rebuilding military installations that's been destroyed, help for rebuilding schools that have been destroyed. why can't we get that done? it's a very substantial package. there's actually more money in
this bill for disaster relief for american citizens than there is for additional border security. so i think this is an imineptly sensible proposal -- imminently sensible proposal and with that, mr. speaker, i would urge its adoption and the adoption of the rule and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i really don't want to prolong this debate much longer here, but, you know, every day with this administration is another self-made crisis, another demonstration of bad faith. no one can trust what comes out of the white house, what the president says. i mean, his word is worthless. and here we are as evidence of that fact. mr. speaker, the government is set to run out of money tomorrow. we are running out of time to act. but apparently this is exactly what president trump wants. last week he said he would be, and i quote -- and i'm quoting
here -- proud to shut the government down, end quote. and today he confirmed he wouldn't even sign a clean c.r. to keep our government open for just a few more weeks. it is irresponsible and abhorrent to attach funding for his offensive border wall to a bill to keep the lights on. that is why if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the senate amendment to h.r. 695, which is the clean c.r. that has already passed the senate by a voice vote. every democrat and every republican, you know, stood together and passed this c.r. it wasn't controversial over there. somehow it is controversial over here. mr. speaker, i want to ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material prior to the vote on the previous question. and i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time.
the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to my very good friend from the great state of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. you know, we all took an oath. i know we remember that oath. it's my first oath of office. to keep our citizens safe, to protect them, protect our borders, protect in the case of disasters and, in fact, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the past have upported a border wall, border protection. mr. mitchell: now since the name president trump is on it, it's evil, it's bad. how politically convenient. i remind you of the oath we took to protect the citizens in this nation that apparently we are so readily to toss aside when it's politically expedient. you talk about a deal that was
made. there was no deal. the senate may have made whatever deal they wish to make. i am not aware we work for the united states senate, mr. speaker. i represent people from the 10th congressional district. i tell you what they say. they want our borders secure. they want us to take people from disasters. their heartaches for the people in florida, georgia, california. they were devastated by disasters. they say, why can't we fund the disaster relief for those people? please, let's not talk about a deal that was made in the other house, because we're not responsible to them. we are responsible to the people who elected us. one last point, we are at this point of struggling over keeping the government open -- and let's be honest about it -- it's part of the government. the other side talks about shutting down the government. it's about 20%, 25% of the government. we're at this point because the senate won't make a deal that
doesn't protect the fairly ten with us position that the future speaker has on the other side of the aisle and she doesn't want to make a deal. i spent 35 years in private business. compromise is the way it works. compromise was offered and summarily rejected in minutes in the senate by mr. schumer and by ms. pelosi. i ask my colleagues to support the rule to pass the resolution, send it back the senate and tell them to do their job. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i just respond to the gentleman, we're all for compromise. this seven-week c.r. is a compromise. the clean c.r. is a compromise. and in a bipartisan way, unanimously in the united states senate, they accepted it. the president said he was for it. then, he changed his mind after
watching "fox and friends" or listening to some right-wing radio host. you know, the gentleman talks about protecting the border. we want to protect the border. we want to invest in things that protect the border. not in a press release, not in a sound bite, not in something that's a total waste of money like a wall. and, you know -- but what about the fact that the president is going to shut the government down over a stupid wall and that means that the men and women who work for the department of homeland security, the people who protect our borders will not get paid? we're not going to support them. one of my republican colleagues today said when we were faced with that question and said, quote, it's actually part of what you do when you sign up for any public service position. really? that's how we treat and respect the men and women who are charged with protecting our
borders, we turn our backs on them during the holiday season? merry christmas. we're not going to pay you. you know, what they need -- and if you go to the border and talk to them, what they need are more personnel. they want us to invest in more electronic equipment to help them survail the border. and they will tell you that this idea of a wall is dumb. it doesn't work. it's not going to protect this country. it is a waste of money. and we had a deal to move this c.r. forward, and the president changed his mind. he reneged on his word. he didn't keep his promise. and here we are. so as republicans fight with republicans here in the house, thankfully the senate in a bipartisan way came up with a solution that was a compromise. democrats are willing to support that compromise. but somehow it's not enough. mr. speaker, i want to yield
two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. ms. jackson lee:. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: the gentleman from massachusetts, thank you. ranking member, soon-to-be-chair. i know what it's like to wait on disaster aid and not getting it. and among other things, this potential or so-called disaster aid is missing. it's missing dollars needed by the people of puerto rico which i walked the streets and saw how desperate the need was. it doesn't even include the $600 million in assistance for puerto rico dealing with food nutrition. i remember in the time of hurricane harvey, we begged for an extension for the food nutrition program called the supplemental disaster food nutrition and in three days we served 30,000 people. you have to feel the pain to understand. but really, mr. speaker, this is a sham and a shame, because republicans are in the united
states senate. let the american people understand that. and they fostered this compromise. they came together. they sent it to the president. they spoke to the president. the president agreed that we would do it in this manner, and that we would look at this issue on the other side of 2019. and what happened here? a callus disregard of border patrol agents, disregard of border -- customs and border protection, disregard of the national guard, the military, that's down at the border who are out there every day and a disregard of jacqueline, the 7-year-old who died because we don't have the adequate health facilities, medical care, medevac and the kinet of decent living conditions -- yes, decent that is warranted. we're shutting down commerce, justice. we don't have enough judges at
the border. we don't have enough judges to render justice ordeal with the asylum cases. so if these folk want border security it is not just the wall. it is the technology. it's the agent. it's understanding human beings are coming across the border. it's medical care. and it is as well the security that we need. so i'm here to say, mr. speaker, as i close, what is sham and a shame, let's get the senate bill and put it on the floor and i introduced yesterday h.r. 7330 that says no american tax dollars will be paid for the wall. mexico will pay for it. border security will be based upon technology and personnel and barriers. let's pass that bill and pass the c.r. in the senate. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, sometimes in heated debate it's easy to miss what the real essence of the dispute
is. when i vote for the rule -- and i don't expect my friends to vote for the rule. that's always a partisan exercise. but when i vote for the underlying legislation, i will actually be voting to fund the government. my friends vote no, they'll be voting not to fund the government. if they're worried about funding the government, all they have to do is vote for this bill, because it funds the government. the second thing i'll be voting for is disaster relief. now, my friends have said that there are other areas that are worthy of relief. that's probably true. and i don't have any quarrel with that. but i wouldn't vote against this disaster relief because it wasn't enough. i would vote for this and then try to get additional in the time that we have remaining. and finally, i'll be voting for enhanced border security. now, we all know we have a problem. we all know that our border is not as secure as we would like. there is a debate over wall versus no wall.
this really isn't a wall. the wall would be $25 billion. our friends have offered $1.7 billion. the president has been the one who's compromised, who's come back with $5. and so we're talking about $3.3 billion for various physical barriers at spots that we all agree they would almost certainly work. done with the cooperation of our other people at homeland security. finally, we're talking about not paying border agents. border agents have told us this is what they need. that's what their union has said. that's what their elected representatives have said. we want to do what the president has proposed. the president isn't shutting down the government. the president is willing to sign legislation that funds all the government. he's asked for disaster relief, something that should not be controversial in this chamber, in my view, but sometimes is. d finally, he's asked for an offly modest amount of money to provide additional security along the border that the border patrol itself has asked
for. that's really what's at issue. when you vote against this legislation, you'll be the ones voting to shut down the government. not the president. not my colleagues in this chamber. not the senate. whatever they decide to do in their infinite wisdom. but a no vote on the underlying legislation is a vote to shut down the government. a yes vote for the rule -- my friends would differ with and that's fair enough -- but a yes vote for the underlying legs is to keep the government open -- legislation is to keep the government open, take care of the disasters we're faced with and provide modest additional support to our border agents and border patrol and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i need to correct the record on a few things here. it was the president who said he would be proud to shut the government down. my colleague may recall not too
long ago, the president has a meeting with speaker-designate speaker and senator schumer. bragged about it. the president invited the cameras in and said i would be proud to own the shutdown. we know where the president stands on this. he doesn't care about shutting the government down. we should. the gentleman said that votes on rules are always partisan, well, for the most part, they are. but not this morning. not this morning. my republican friends brought a marshal lau rule to the law which we don't like because it condenses the process and they don't have a lot of time to look at things, but nonetheless, we said we would vote for it. and every democrat voted with republicans to move this rule forward so we can bring up the senate-passed continuing resolution today and keep the
government running and pay the men and women who protect our borders. we came in good faith and we did that. we want border security. we just think that wasting billions of dollars on a stupid wall that doesn't do anything to protect our country is the wrong way to go. so if you want to vote to keep the government open, then you should vote with us to defeat the previous question. because if we defeat the previous question, then i will bring up the senate-passed continuing resolution and all vote for it. we could all keep the government running and all good home have a merry christmas and happy new year. that's how simple it is. my republican friends are bringing a rule to the floor that says if you vote for this rule, there is no separate vote on the border wall. it's all together. and they know what's going to happen if it passes the house, it will go over to the senate
and they are not going to accept this. they had a compromised and if you want to keep the government open, then vote with the democrats on defeating the previous question and we will bring up a clean c.r. and do the right thing and do what we thought we were going to be doing this morning until the republicans got in a fight with each other and here we are. mr. cole: i'm prepared to close. mr. mcgovern: let me say, mr. speaker, i'm looking at a headline here today that says s. stocks clobbered with dow losing 500 points over government shutdown. creating in a stock market is how a drama queen might act but not how a president should behave. this is totally manufactured by
the white house crisis. this is ridiculous we are at this point after all the agreements that have been reached in the senate and we thought, here in the house. the president turned the tv set and started watching fox news and got carried away and now is renigging on his agreement. that's unfortunate. but i would again say to my colleagues, let us defeat the previous question and we which will bring up a clean c.r. and keep the government open and do the right thing for the american people and make sure that the men and women who are protecting our border, get paid this christmas holiday. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities with the president. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized to close debate on
this legislation. mr. cole: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i want to thank my friend. as always, it's a spirited debate and want to be the first to say he is exactly on a point that he made. occasionally he did earlier today actually help me on this side of the aisle. i was much more persuasive this morning than i was this afternoon. my friend is exactly right and we have worked together and i thank him for that. i want to review what i see at least, mr. speaker, as the main issues here. number one, we all say we agree we want to keep the government funded and i believe we all do. we don't believe this government shutdowns and we all believe the government ought to be funded. the underlying legislation does exactly that. i think all of us on both sides of the aisle care about americans who have been hurt in
disasters. and we have shown that time and time again and we have struggled on occasion, but we germly get aid to where it's needed and if we overlook somebody, we try to come back and do it again. this bill makes a good faith effort to provide billions of dollars in assistance to millions of americans who have been ravaged by fire, damaged by hurricanes, who face a variety of disasters, not just in the united states but in the territories as well. again, if we have overlooked something, we should go back to take care of that as well. finally, it provides a very modest amount of money. remember, this package together is over $250 billion, the difference between the two sides unless my friends object to disaster relief, is $3.3 billion that's what the president he thinks in additional expenditure along the border or $5 billion,
but the difference between the two sides is $3.3 billion. that doesn't build the wall. the president is not uncompromising. he has been talking about an elaborate border security of $25 billion this is five, not 25. this will provide additional security. there are points along the way where physical barriers matter and make a difference. i think that's what the president is asking tore. my friends worry and rightly so about people not getting paid during a government shutdown, which i hope we avoid, quite frankly. but the men and women on the board have asked the president to do this. they support what he is trying to do. when we send troops into combat, i listen to what they have to say and so does this congress.
we put people in difficult situations along the border and tells us these are the tools they need and the president is trying to support them and we should support him in that effort. i encourage all members to support the rule. today's bill represents the next step towards fulfilling our primary obligation as members of congress to fund the government while continuing resolutions are never the best way to fund the government, today's measure will allow us to keep the entire government open and operating and providing needed services for our country and our constituents until february 8 of 2019. this measure will give congress the time it needs to complete the rest of our work and fully fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2019. i want to applaud my colleagues for their work, and with that, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields
back and moves the previous question. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for the yeas and nays, please. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of the resolution if ordered, the motion to concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 88 with an amendment and motion to suspend the rules and concur this the senate amendments in h.r. 2606, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote.
the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a 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. 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 unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the motion to concur in the senate amendment on h.r. 88 with amendments offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion offered by mr. brady of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the motion to concur. members will record their votes y electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]