Transcripts For CSPAN U.S. House Of Representatives 12122017

in some of these operations don't even pay 5% or 8%. te geem from orgia se >> "washington journal" live at 8:30 a.m. every day on c-span. now back to the house floor. re thelerk: report tocmpan house resoluon 5esolion ing foonideration of thbi h.r.6,to amend e gram leh brylor nalnitn s ovid f ano ove the alit proxy adsoryir for the ectionf vestorsn the u.s. eco and in theublic interesosing accouabilityompetiveness inthe proxy aoryirm rmenteport tomny use sotion 6, provi focoiderat h.r.io 1638, to require the secretary of the treasury to submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees on the estimated total cost assets under direct or indirect control by certain senior iranian leaders and other figures and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4324, to require the secretary of the treasury to make certifications with respect to united states and foreign financial institutions aircraft related transactions involving iran and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. the motion to recommit on h.r. 3971, and passage of h.r. 3971, if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the request on agreeing to the motion to recommit on h.r. 3971. offered by the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. titus, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion to recommit on h.r. 3971 offered by ms. titus of nevada. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the motion to recommit. motions -- members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] . . the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 190, the nays are 233. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> ms. waters: i request 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, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. federal federal 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 epresentatives.] [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: the nays are 294, the nays are 129. the bill is passed. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the house floor. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speesms. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. and the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: as isis loses ground in syria and iraq, we must remain vigilant. there is a growing terrorist threat in africa. e african continent suffered incidents of terrorist-related violence. terrorism is a challenge to decent security. the threat has grown to directly impact u.s. service members serving in africa. a navy seal was killed in an operation against sha bad, the first u.s. member killed in black since the 1993 hawk-downed incident. an ambush left four u.s. green beer as killed. the u.s. conducted its first air strikes against isis in somalia. the writing is on the wall. the cancer is spreading and on its way to becoming a full-plone threat to african and american interests. having been displaced by war in syria and iraq, isis is finding a new home to carry out its terror. and that's just the way it is. . i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. he house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the farm bureaus of monterey county and santa cruz county. this year those farm bureaus will mark 100 years of serving our agricultural communities along the central coast of california. we know that those in agriculture are consistently evolving as they constantly contend with mother nature, mandates, the ever-changing market. mr. panetta: the local farm bureau's leadership has been there to help our over 600 farmers stay competitive and keep our communities strong. the farm bureaus are an essential ingredient as to why our number one work is agriculture. i thank and recognize the santa for and monterey bureaus their past, present and future work for the farm communities. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise today to remember the life of former georgia state representative john yates who passed away on december 11 at the age of 96. representing griffin, georgia, just south of atlanta, he was first elected to the general assembly in 1988 and over time became one of the most aspiring officials in the state. when he retired from government, representative yates was the only world war ii veteran serving in the georgia general assembly. he was drafted into the army in 1942, and flew a piper cub airplane, a small plane with a top speed of less than 100 miles per hour. he flew 200 missions, adjusting artillery fire on the enemy, including at the battle at the bulge, earning six air medals and four battle stars. he went back to school to earn his college degree and worked with ford motor company, eventually becoming a depot manager. representative yates served the state of georgia with the most humble at feud and went to great lengths to help georgia veterans. anyone who was lucky enough to know representative yates can learn from his attitude, knowledge and experience. mr. speaker, i had the honor and privilege of serving with representative yates. he was a great american, a true american hero, and a fine man. he will be missed. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, by now we have all seen the horrifying video of slave auctions in libya. it's outrageous. migrants and refugees, most of them black africans, are being preyed upon, held in detention camps, and being bought and sold like property. mr. speaker, the united states cannot stand by as an idle spectator to the plague of slavery in libya. people are not property. last week, members of the congressional black caucus and i met with libya's ambassador. she agreed that the libyan government will conduct a transparent investigation, but they do not have the capacity to do so, and that does not absolve the united states of its responsibilities. we must immediately investigate allegations of slavery and forced labor in libya. we need to impose sanctions if libya fails to end slavery auctions and forced labor, and we must ensure u.s. department of state and the u.s. agency for international development are adequately staffed to respond to the situation in libya. mr. speaker, congress should not -- should adopt the bipartisan house resolution mber 644, which will do so and help us in all of these atters and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests? under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2017, gentleman from florida, mr. gaetz, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gaetz: thank you, mr. speaker. and i take the floor tonight with many of my colleagues to fight back against an attack on the rule of law and our democratic institutions. right now the investigations into donald trump and the prior investigation into hillary clinton have been infected with the virus of severe bias. hillary clinton went under investigation for the mishandling of classified information and also her dealings through the clinton foundation was essentially investigated by her own fan club. meanwhile, robert mueller obtained his team by fishing in the never trump aquarium. only through the antidote of transparency can we end this erosion of the rule of law and can we restore the american people's confidence in the institutions that we must trust to live in a civilized society. the people in this country have a right to know what has happened within the f.b.i., the department of justice, and within robert mueller's team as he probes the president and his transition. but there is so much in hearing after hearing that members of the judiciary committee and the intelligence committee and the oversight committee have been told, we don't have a right to know as the representatives of the people. let's begin with the tarmac meeting between loretta lynch and former president bill clinton. we, as the american people, apparently don't have the right to know what was trulyly discussed and information and reports submitted to congress there is extensive redacted information where we don't get to see the substance of those communications between loretta lynch and former president bill clinton. it's deeply troubling. we also don't get to know what the informant would tell us who had information about russia's attempts to impair the united states' uranium assets through the now-infamous uranium one deal. we know there was an informant. we know that informant wanted to come form and give information about bribery and kickbacks that undermined america's interests, but unfortunately people at the justice department that still remain in substantial positions of power went and sought a gag order so that the congress wouldn't learn what was happening and so the american people wouldn't learn what was happening. then, we learned that an inspector general who wanted to raise the flag of concern regarding the deeply troubling conduct of hillary clinton was essentially shut down. mr. mccullough has now given interviews upon his departure from the intelligence community indicating that he went to james clapper. he said that these mishappens, these potential violations of the law were serious and they put america's national security in jeopardy. what he heard back from mr. clapper was that these revolutions would create heartburn for the clinton campaign. it is ludicrous when we've got potential bribes and kickbacks, when we got the clinton foundation functioning as officially as a pass-through money laundering operation, that we wouldn't have all of the information that an inspector general would now have. mr. mccullough has now said his family, his job, his agency, his mission was threatened by people in the deep state. that is not the america we need to live in. transparency is the antidote to this type of corruption and this type of truly intolerable conduct. here's what we do know. we do know that the democratic national committee was off paying for a fallacious and false dossier from the fusion agency about donald trump. we don't know whether the f.b.i. contributed funds toward that cause. think about that for a moment. when we ask the f.b.i. director, were taxpayer funds used to obtain a dossier to discredit the president both before and after his election, we were told we didn't have a right to know and that the taxpayers don't have the right to know if their money was used in this way. it's troubling. we also know that nelly orr, the wife of a top department of justice official, bruce orr, was actually getting paid by fusion g.p.s., the company that ultimately produced this false dossier. if that's not a conflict of interest, if that doesn't impair the credibility of this investigation, i don't know what does. we also don't know who's in charge. we ask questions to the attorney general regarding the nature of his recusal. can the attorney general appoint a second special counsel to evaluate the clinton foundation? we got contradictory answers. so as we prepare for the deputy attorney general, mr. rosenstein's testimony before the judiciary committee tomorrow, we don't know if mr. rosenstein can appoint a certainly counsel or the attorney general. we do know the american people want it. harvard released a poll saying 60% believe there should be a second special counsel to investigate the clinton foundation. so let's look at that bias as it is applied to mr. mueller and his team. we have no idea how bob mueller picked the members of his team. i asked the f.b.i. director christopher wray, did people get on the mueller team because they hate president trump? was there any vetting? was there any review? did we look at political contributions, political activity or activism from these folks? and the f.b.i. director would not answer my question. and so here we are. unclear as to whether or not the standard to investigate the president was a pre-existing bias against him. mr. speaker, i don't believe that it's a coincidence that the mueller team is populated by people who bring that bias with them and who seemingly have acted upon it. mr. weitzman, who's mueller number two, he attended hillary clinton's election night party. are we saying we couldn't find a number two in the mueller investigation that wasn't at hillary clinton's election night party? for goodness sakes, we also know that mr. weitzman sent emails to sally yates praising her for directly defying an order from the president of the united states. that should have disqualified mr. weitzman, but we don't know if that was in fact the qualifying factor that led him to be on this team. aaron zebly, he's also a member of the mueller team. he represented justin cooper who set up the hillary clinton email server. could we not have found people from the mueller team that wasn't involved in setting up an email server for hillary clinton, for goodness sakes? he also used a hammer to smash blackberries, destroying evidence. heck, he may be a witness and yet he's on the mueller team. jeannie wray, very defended the clinton foundation against foia requests. in fact, half of the members of the mueller team have financially contributed to the complains of barack obama or hillary clinton or both, and none of them contributed to donald trump. i don't think it's a coincidence and i think it's ridiculous that the congress doesn't have any information about how these people were selected, how they were vetted, how they were approved. but it's not just the mueller team. it's also the department of justice. bruce orr, the head of counterintelligence, he meets with christopher steele who is the author of the dossier during the campaign, and then after the campaign, he meets with glenn simpson. all the while bruce orr, working at the department of justice, has a spouse getting paid by the very people developing these lies about the president to discredit him. it is smoking gun evidence of bias and conflict of interest. but it's not just the mueller team and the department of justice. it's also the f.b.i. andrew mccabe is the current deputy director of the f.b.i. when he was the assistant agent in charge of the washington field office, he was sending out emails just weeks before the 2016 election saying that the hillary clinton investigation would be given special status, that it would be handled by a small team at headquarters. so what that means is that hillary clinton got different treatment than any other american that would have been charged with the mishandling of classified information in the washington, d.c., area. absolutely outrageous. that special treatment didn't lead to a more rigorous review. in fact, we know now that james comey was drafting the exoneration statement before looking at key witnesses, including hillary clinton himself. and we have peter struck at the f.b.i. mr. struck has been discredited and demoted because he was sending 10,000 text messages back and forthwith his mistress about how much he loved hillary clinton and hated trump. i don't think it's a coincidence that mr. struck was the person that went and changed the term grocery negligent, which is a crime, to careless, in the exoneration statement about hillary clinton. . the attorney general needs to do his job and appoint a special counsel because hillary clinton was never investigated and neesdz to put up or shut up. we are a year into this investigation and the only thing i see is a bias that continues to erode our institutions and our rule of law and this congress should stand for it no more. i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, such time as he may consume. mr. perry: i thank the gentleman from florida for bringing this issue to the floor. mr. speaker, this can all be cleared up pretty quickly with a little bit of transparency and comes down to the issue and this is the issue do we have impartial justice in this country or don't we? fold is over her eyes and not leaning one way or the other, but in this case it seems, i'm going to say it like the scales are not right across but heavily one side. and let me make a couple of points. director mccabe referred to the clinton email investigation as special, as special. why is it special? where is it on that scale? is it up high or down low? why did mrs. clinton -- why is it called special? why did she have a team from headquarters investigate her as opposed to the washington field office. think about this, if the f.b.i. called you it wouldn't be for a meeting or interview but a deposition. you sit there with your lawyer. it wouldn't be convenient for you but convenient for the f.b.i. mrs. clinton gets to have a meeting with the f.b.i. with an interview on a saturday morning of a holiday weekend. contrast that on the scales of justice with paul man for the. he gets his home broken into and dragged out of bed while he and his wife are sleeping. something doesn't seem right. the meeting on the tarmac. the f.b.i. in their emails it was revealed they wanted to get the agent that divulged that that meeting occurred on the tarmac and what the meeting was about just days before secretary clinton was going to be deposed before this house of representatives and be questioned and interviewed about her role in been gasy, right? why does that happen? it seements like the scales of justice once again are tipped. ok and interviewed a number of people and they all got immunity. who gives immunity without anything in return? they got immunity, we get it. we want to know what was on the other side of that equation. this is not to apologize for or to stick up for mike flynn or for paul man for the. if they committed crimes, that needs to be dealt with appropriately. lying period is never appropriate. but they didn't get this deal, right? these folks did get the deal. and at the same time, while they got the deal, we know their email and interviews they did lie to the f.b.i. some of these folks did lie. and michael flynn did lie. are the scales of justice, do they seem they are a little bit askew. we know there was one searching computer.to scrub a cheryl mills, she got immunity allegedly to give up her laptop. and can't get prosecuted. shouldn't the american people know what the information is on the laptop. why is it that that congress, this jurisdiction of oversight as applied in the constitution has to beg the f.b.i. and department of justice to provide documents so we can see what happened and the american people and representatives can know how this dosier was constructed and how it was used. why must we beg for that information? mr. speaker, this can all be cleared up. just provide the information. there doesn't have to be a special prosecutor. mueller can find the truth. we want the truth that is impartial and not something that is fabry rated cause we have an f.b.i. that is pursuing individuals as opposed to crimes. the american people need to know at this isn't a tin-horn dictatorship and government officials using the federal government to work against their political rivals. they can trust their f.b.i. and right now it doesn't seem like they can have confidence. if you are on the wrong side of the scale, mr. speaker, it's a bad day for you. but if you are connected and people working for you, like peter and bruce and andrew, jeannie, as the days go on, we find out more and more. and we don't find it out because they are offering it but we have to pull it from them and require them to come in here and force the information out of them. we need to have confidence in our f.b.i. and need to have confidence in our department of justice. american citizens need to have confidence in their judicial system that the blind fold is on lady justice and the scales are even and going to be treated evenly and crimes are going to be treated individually and not a witch hunt against people with whom the political ruling class disagrees. so if it requires another special counsel, so be it. if not, it would be great. and providing the information that this house of representatives and the american people demand. there is no reason to keep it, it's not classified or sensitive but information we need to know so we know who is being truthful with us and have confidence in the fidelity of our f.b.i. and our department of justice. with that, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from florida, and i yield. mr. gaetz: i yield to the the gentleman from georgia, mr. hice. mr. hice: i thank the gentleman from florida. we all want transparency and for that to be in our government, it's critical for all of us and be on the oversight committee which is part of the responsibilities entrusted to us. but after repeated scandals and misconducts it is patently obvious to me that hillary clinton plays by her own rules and does so because of her own status and positions of power and influence and been in those roles for decades. she has been getting a free pass to ignore the law as she chooses where she seems on the other hand that president trump and his administration seems to get a special counsel just for sneezing. it's insane what is going on and we as americans must prioritize equal justice under the law. lady justice must remind blind and her scales must remain balanced. this is a fem principle for all of us as americans and something we cherish and we are watching it change right before our eyes. it seems as though lady justice is peeking underneath that blind fold and that is unacceptable. we are drawing attention to this horror and this change that's taking place, the principle of blind justice is one of the most basic fundamental principles in this country and without it, we are watching individuals like mrs. clinton and her allies act above the law. and the truth is a breach of justice for one is a breach of justice for all of us. back in august of 2016, "new york times" reported on generous foreign donations to the clinton foundation and this was done while she was secretary of state. that ought to raise some red flags, shouldn't it? and we find out many of these foreign countries had already tremendous human rights violations, kuwait, for example, saudi arabia, qatar and others, human rights violations and giving tons of money to the clinton foundation while she was secretary of state. they said we disclosed the information about who was giving what and tried to convince us that they went above and beyond, but they did not do so. we found one of the donors apparently -- it was not disclosed $3.5 million from a family foundation that was linked to uranium one which we happen to be talking about tonight. who is uranium one? of course we know that this was a company taken over by russia's energy firm. and another decision that was signed off by secretary of state hillary clinton. the dots are pretty to start connecting. we have red flags here. tore was $145r million given the clinton foundation by uranium one's owners. i don't know about anyone else here, but i would certainly know t if i received money from russian donors. talk about russian col like. let's talk about it here. and i would be very concerned that someone receiving this money was free of bias or coercion when they are getting this type of money. let me land the plane here. there is a full-fledge pd investigation into president trump's interactions with russia but where is the investigation on hillary clinton? activities with the russians? the obama administration attempted to sweep this situation under the rug and left her off the hook. that is a disgrace. that is incomplete disregard for our nation's laws and that ought to be something else that is looked into. the obama's administration's role in all of this. attorney general sessions is taking this seriously and get to the bottom of this and ensure that justice is served. the f.b.i. must investigate this thoroughly and we must have transparency and make sure that secretary of state clinton is held accountable. enough is enough. i thank the gm the gentleman from florida and i yield back. mr. gaetz: i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. mr. jordan: did the comey f.b.i. and the obama administration go after the republican party? did the f.b.i. and the justice department work hand in glove with the clinton campaign to go after the trump campaign? that's the funnel question and speak about what we have learned. first we learned the d.n.c. and the clinton campaign had the dosier. they are one and the same paid for the dosier. they paid their law firm to pay sion gps and christopher steele. this is a great irony. mueller investigating the possible clution in the presidential election and yet we know just as sure as i'm standing on the house floor, we know the clinton campaign paid russians to do what, influence the 2016 presidential election. they paid for the dosier. it's been reported and i think it has happened, but it's been reported the dosier became the basis to secure warrants at the fisa courts. they took this disproven, fake news, "national enquirer" dosier and spruced it all up and took it to the fisa court and a judge said that's enough to spy on americans. that's what is reported and all the evidence points to that actually taking place. they use this disproven dosier to spy on americans and what have we learned in the past five days. ruce orr, associate deputy attorney general, four doors rosenstein, in 2016, during the campaign is meeting with the guy who wrote the dosier, meeting with christopher steele and bruce o rmp r, associate deputy attorney general, four doors down from rod rossen steen is meeting with glen simpson. you have orr hanging on it with the guy who wrote and paid for the dosier during the campaign. . here's the kicker. orr is that bruce is ing with, his wife working with fusion g.p.s. we know that's public. we know that's the truth. i appreciate the work that mr. gaetz and my colleagues are doing on this. we're saying, look, give us the documents. answer our questions, for crying out loud, and if not appoint a second special council so the american people can get the truth. because if this happened, and i think it did, if this in fact happened where you had the justice department, the f.b.i. working with one campaign to go after the other campaign, working with the clinton campaign to go after president trump's campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets, that is something that should never take place in the united states of america and that's why this is so important. that's why the congress congressman gaetz is doing, other colleagues are doing, that's why this is so important and, again, if you're not going to do the job, justice department, at least appoint a second special council so we can get answers and we can hold people accountable who did this in this great country. with that i yield back. mr. gaetz: i thank the gentleman from ohio for joining us on the floor this evening. i particularly thank him for his work in the judiciary committee and the oversight committee. the gentleman's correct. we just want our questions answered. we just want to know, did these things occur that would seem to evidence conclusion on the part of the democratic party and the clinton campaign with russians to influence the outcome of the election. but our own justice department and our own f.b.i. won't answer these questions. tomorrow we have mr. rosenstein before the judiciary committee. i hope he does give us answers. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield such time as he may con-- man consume to the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs, a member of the judiciary committee. mr. biggs: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from florida for leading this special order tonight. i'm grateful for his work on this very important issue, and i will tell you that i am very appreciative of my colleagues who also continue to work on this very important task because this, mr. speaker, reminds me of playing a basketball game. where you get there and there is a five-on-five game except it's not really five-on-five because the other team's got the referees on their side. they got the score keeper on their side. they got the statistics on their side. they got the person running the clock on their side. and that's really what's happened here. now, we know that's what's happened here because of the conflict of interest and bias that has taken over and controls the robert mueller special investigation's team. that's a team that's biased. this has got a conflict of interest. nobody is going to get a fair shake from that team, and why is that? well, let's just think about this. couple weeks ago we had the f.b.i. -- excuse me -- attorney general jeff sessions come in. he's a great guy. i asked him specifically, do you have any procedure to vet conflict of interest or bias on the special -- mueller special team or on the -- in the department of justice? he said, no, we don't. we don't have that. he doesn't have a process. he says, it's up to each individual to determine if they got that conflict of interest or bias. well, we had director wray in last week. i asked him the same question. he basically the same thing. no, we don't have a process. mueller doesn't have a process. in fact, it is as if the process is you need to have a conflict or bias in order to get on mueller's special counsel team. that's what this is stacked up to being. well, that's where we are today. and so tomorrow when the deputy rosenstein comes in i'm looking forward to asking him the same questions because there is conflict, there is bias. my colleagues have all iterated that tonight. it just happens over and over and over again. you get on that team, you have o have a conflict or bias. well, so what else is important, what else has come out of these hearings? well, i tell you what else has come out. when i asked director wray, we know, we know we have a problem here and director -- attorney general sessions said it's the person to make sure they don't have a conflict, we know there is a cloud, there is a huge cloud that sits right there. well, this is outrageous. no firm in the private sector would ever allow that to go on. here we have this. it's like a drip, drip, drip from a faucet. every day or two, here's another conflict of interest that comes out. ohr, r. struck, mr. cooper.. ohr, mr. it just goes on and on. this is ridiculous. so i asked director wray. i said, look, you have the inspector general looking at the hillary clinton investigation right now and all these other investigations. what will you do if he says there was irregularities in the hillary clinton investigation. and he said, this is a quote, unring the bell, closed quote. he said he's willing to unring the bell. he talked about personnel decisions. some will have to be let go, disciplined, retrained, whatever. maybe they'll come up with a process to vet conflicts of interest and bias in investigations. but i pressed him a little bit harder. i said when you get to unring the bell, if you have irregularities in the hillary clinton investigation, will you recommit to open up the investigation? he didn't recommit. that's what needs to happen now. we know there are irregularities. we know that's what the inspector general is going to find. and i tell you this, we have ot to stop making this administration play a stacked team where the other team has nothing but biased and conflicted investigators who control the clock, who control e score, who control the statistics, who control the referees. that's what is going on here. it must stop and it must stop now. nd with that in mind, if the -- if mr. -- the attorney general sessions, if mr. wray, director wray, and if mr. rosenstein do not provide the information congress has asked, they should be held in contempt and with that, again, i thank my friend from florida and i yield back. mr. gaetz: i thank the gentleman from arizona for his leadership on the judiciary committee. and he's absolutely right. we have to get answers to these questions. and if we don't, the congress can never have confidence in the outcome of any investigation. if we can't have confidence then our constituents, the american people certainly can't either. at this point i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to another member of the judiciary committee, my good friend from texas, mr. gohmert. thank you. and i do appreciate the concerns. of my friends here in congress because this is just incredible. have ow, we -- many of us read, understood what happened during watergate and thought, surely there had been enough things put in as checks to event an administration from totally co-opting the department of justice. no president should have an administration that's powerful enough that it could be a all sustaining party where of the powers, whether it's the i.r.s. that has people in key laces that prevent people from giving, for example, proper tax status to opponents of an administration so that they stand a better chance of being efeated in running for a second election. it happened during the obama administration. and to the great embarrassment or should be embarrassment of the obama administration of the i.r.s. and of the united states congress nothing was done. it appears crimes were committed. nothing was done. we were aghast. surely the dodge would jump into the i.r.s. and correct this and stop this -- the d.o.j. would jump into the i.r.s. and correct this and stop this. i mean, nixon may have dreamed of this at some point burr we are not aware of it -- point but we are not aware of it. people would use the powers of government in such a flagrant form as we're finding out almost every day now, new allegations -- not allegations -- new facts that show that orruption and political animus and anything but justice is being conducted for a number of years in the department of justice. as an assistant district attorney in east texas, as a judge getting to know and hearing so many different federal agents testify, most people felt like, gosh, if the f.b.i. comes in, this is -- these are the guys in the white house, but much of america has een what can only be styled as real corruption that's turned those white hats into a stinking brown for some of the top people. we heard christopher wray, the f.b.i. director saying, i think of the f.b.i. and i think about these thousands of great federal agents across the country who care about their country and protecting people's lives and protecting the law. well, yeah, i think about that, too, until my mind comes back here to washington and not just a swamp but areas that have become a cesspool. it is unbelievable to think -- i saw all the president's men the other night, about watergate and deep throat, and as i watched -- oh, my gosh. you mean somebody in the white house may have had contact with somebody that may have had funds that could be used? i mean, you look at what is coming out in the news every day and it makes that look like keystone cops. nothing compared to the extent that this administration used the justice department -- ain't going back to the i.r.s. what did rosenstein or all these other great justice department officials do for us in cleaning up the mess at the i.r.s.? nothing, nothing, nothing. what did eric holder, loretta lynch do to clean things up? well, they just kept dumping dirt in that washing machine. more and more dirt in the washing machine. just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, then you find a reporter seized the husband of someone being investigated in a clan des ion meeting in an -- clandestine meeting in an area nobody thought would notice, and what did they want to do at the justice department? we find out they want to go after that reporter. they want to go after that reporter because this reporter actually was reporting some things that might help get some things cleaned up. we don't want things cleaned up. we want to keep our little cesspool tight and friendly where we know all the players, we know all the swamp rats. we have got to have a massive cleanout of what has been appening, and it's not happening. and, you know, then we find out, gee. there was this investigation regarding russia trying to olate the law, pay bribes, payouts, anything they could do to corner the market on uranium and get united states uranium in their own control and, gee, who ends up having their ingerprints on that? guy named rosenstein, and in fact, then you see one of the people involved in the investigation of corruption and uranium and payoffs. well, there's rosenstein's name. he has an assistant signing for him, asking the judge to seal his records, so we can't know what's all done by the f.b.i. kind of like we find out there is someone -- the undercover agent that the f.b.i. was using, that the justice department was -- using. and they get an agreement, a nondisclosure agreement. i mean, the only reason i can think of they'd want a nondisclosure agreement at f.b.i. is so that the informant wouldn't turn around and talk about how dirty they'd been. why would they get a nondisclosure agreement -- i mean, that's just -- i might expect the guy that was the informant demanding a nondisclosure agreement from the f.b.i. and from the justice department. you can't talk about what all idea -- you can't talk about the things i did because then the people i was working undercover for you on, they might try to kill me. so i demand a nondisclosure agreement from the justice department from the f.b.i., so you won't disclose things that will get me killed. but no, that's not what happened. under the obama administration, loretta lynch injustice department, we have a nondisclosure agreement that the person that risked his life couldn't disclose what was going on. sounds like somebody to me at the f.b.i. and the justice department had a pretty dirty conscience and they didn't want to be outed. and every turn -- oh, well that was sealed. oh, well that's a nondisclosure agreement. ol, -- oh, well you can't have access to that. the f.b.i. and the justice department and the people that we have been questioning have really kind of gotten themselves in a position where they're above the law. they are above congress. and in this country, where the branch that the founders thought would have the least control ever, that was the judicialer judiciary, they're small, they don't -- that was the judiciary, they're small, they don't really have any power, they're legislating and running executive branch from underneath their robes. and at the same time you've got the executive branch and the department of justice that has become a new playground for people that want to write like calf can. -- kafka. knocking down doors, in the wee hours of the morning. oh, were they a threat? well, no, not really. but we just need to intimidate them. it's what we do in the justice department nowadays. we're the department of intimidation. i'm telling you, mr. speaker, there has got to be a material change. there has got to be. there are too many people currently in the justice department and the top of the f.b.i., not these fine young agents across the country that have given everything they have, even though mueller removed eir ability to have wise counsel, because he got rid of the long-tooth people that had the experience and the wisdom to know -- long-toothed people that had the experience and the wisdom to know. he purged the training material so f.b.i. agents could not know how to discern if somebody had been radicalized. and there is just so much that almost needs to start from scratch. and we're having to deal with the players like rosenstein that have been in that system as they were part of the process, while it was corroding and really infecting. i thank my friends for caring enough about what's going on to stand up and raise cane. like i said, you know, just when you think, well, that's got to be the final shoe dropping. then we have this story that the wife of the demoted d.o.j. official actually worked for the firm that put together -- was behind the anti-trump dossier that we believe may very likely have been used in order to surrail the trump campaign -- surveil the trump campaign, in order to use the d.o.j.. and working in collusion with not only russia, but also the hillary clinton campaign, in order to elect a candidate that had no chance otherwise. well, funny thing happened on and ay to using the d.o.j. the fusion g.p.s. and the russians in order to get hillary clinton elected. she didn't get elected. doesn't owe inly anything to nellie ohr or bruce ohr or these people who have been occupying the department of justice as it tainted around turned from what christopher -- and turned from what christopher ray said an f that stood for fidelity to now an i that stands for infidelity. let's get back to fidelity in the justice department. let's get back to an incorruptable justice department . i'm hoping and praying we're headed that direction. but i'm just not seeing it yet. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from texas. mr. gaetz: his perspective as a former prosecutor and former judge certainly shed a tremendous amount of light on the stark days that we found ourselves in with this biased effort against the president of the united states. i would also like to thank the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, the gentleman from georgia, mr. hice, for their -- and the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs for their contributions not to only this -- mr. biggs, for their contributions not to only this special order, but to the conversation we're having in the country. i'll conclude with this. tomorrow the deputy attorney general will serve his right hand and swear to be truthful before the judiciary committee and we'll ask these tough questions about coordination with democrats and the d.n.c. and potentially the f.b.i. to gin up this false information about the president. we'll ask why a senior official at the department of justice had a spouse who was working for the company that was trying to discredit our president, both before and after the election. and i hope he doesn't give the same answers. that we heard from the director of the f.b.i., mr. ray. mr. ray said in response to almost all these questions, well, we've got an inspector general. inspector generals sniff around all these things and if there's something wrong, we'll make reforms after we hear back. the time is now. the danger to our country is clear and present. if we allow our duly elected president to be undermined by these unfair and biased tactics. so i'm hopeful that we'll move past the jargon and just give straight answers to the american people, to these very legitimate questions that so many of our constituents are asking. we should also remember that the inspector general process is far from perfect. we heard from anspecter general, mr. mccullough, who said that when he brought forward claims he was threatened, his family was threatened, his job was threatened. his agency was threatened. and that he did not have an opportunity to tell the american people the truth. mr. speaker, the american people deserve the truth. the truth is that there was no collusion. between the trump campaign and russia. if there was any collusion, it was the democrats, it was the d.n.c. and it was this nexus between mr. ohr and his spouse working for the very people who were engaged in these devious tactic. we deserve better. we're going to be demanding better. tomorrow in the judiciary committee. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, one of the tasks of having the second order hour is to find myself sitting here in this chamber listening to the most absurd, ridiculous conversation that i think i've ever heard anywhere. my esteemed colleagues were here for the last hour in a different world. in a completely different universe. not of this world, but a different universe. i'm going, what in the world are they saying? by my recollection, every one of our intelligence agencies said that russia was involved in the campaign, and developing information that was supporting the current president. i'm going, i think that's what i heard over the last nine, 10, almost 14 months now. and yet my colleagues are up here in a different world. i'll tell what you it's all about. this wasn't the subject matter that i was going to talk to tonight. but it was really about another scheme that's being perpetrated. this is all about -- this last hour discussion was all about somehow turning the table so hat special prosecutor mueller is demeaned, his work is somehow not authentic. so that the investigation that is coming closer and closer to he oval office is discredited. setting the stage for what may very, very well be an extremely important task that thises who has -- that this house has. that investigation continues e'll hear even more shrill discussions from the president's supporters, tearing down that investigation, undermining the integrity of it. so that when that task comes to the house of representatives, in an impeachment resolution, they his imply say, well, entire investigation is discredited. and therefore we're not going to proceed. the american public isn't buying it, gentlemen. the american public is not blind. they are not deaf. they're listening. and they're understanding that an honest investigation is under way. based upon what our intelligence agencies discovered, based upon he fact, the fact that the russians did hack the d.n.c. and did hack the chairman of the hillary clinton campaign. and then weaponized those emails that were stolen. that's a fact, gentlemen. and you cannot wash away that fact. and from there we now have a special prosecutor, a special counsel in place who's carrying on an investigation. and indictments have come forward. and penalties have been assessed. and people have pleaded guilty. all of that's a fact. and it's pointing closer and closer to the white house. and therefore i understand, gentlemen, i understand why you're so upset. i suppose if i were somehow to stand here and be an advocate for the president, i might be upset too. because the net is drawing tighter. because the information is coming clearer. so come to the floor. do what you can. do what you can. to undermine the investigation. do what you can through your faulthoods, through your incorrect interpretations of plain facts. to undermine the integrity of an investigation. i understand why you would be so intent upon doing so. but the purpose of this evening isn't that. it's something that will affect america for the next two decades. at least. the purpose of this hour is to talk to the american people about what is happening here while these foolish floor discussions are going on. what is happening here in congress at this moment, this week, is one of the biggest transfers of wealth ever in america's history. the transfer of wealth from the working men and women of america , from the poor, from the elderly, to the super wealthy of america. what is happening here in congress now, in a conference committee, is the drafting of legislation, tax legislation, that will dramatically effect the american economy for decades. transferring wealth, benefits that the elderly receive in medicare. transferring benefits that the poor receive in food stamps, in medicare, eels, in medicaid, children's health programs, transferring those necessary benefits that these to and women need to survive be able to live, transferring those benefits to the super wealthy in a tax proposal that gives to the largest american , rporations and to the top 1% over a trillion -- excuse me, over $5 trillion over the next decade. that's what's happening. that have rporations already -- here's a fact. american corporations that have already seen their share of burden to finance this government, to educate the americans, to keep our military, to deal with national security, they've seen their share of the federal revenue drop by 20%. 1960, , 30% in 1939, 15%, down to somewhere in the 5% o 10% range. at the same time the burden has shifted to the middle class. that's what's happening. that's what should be happening. here's the way we ought to look at it. on the mall. here in washington. we have the f.d.r. memorial. tched in the marble is this. the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much , it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. i presented this upside down almost by purpose. because that's precisely what our republican colleagues are doing. they're taking that value and turning it upside down instead of doing more for those who have little, they're doing much for those who already control the greatest amount of wealth ever in the hands full of a few people since the 1400's. from the spanish empire. was ripping off the western hemisphere. that's what's happening. of all of this money, all of his, the top 1% in america's biggest corporations are gaining and the rest of americans over the next five to seven years are going to pay for that. we have to stop this tax cut. we have to stop it because it is terrible public policy. american corporations don't need more money. it was reported today that apple , the world's largest, most valuable corporation, apple in my state of california, is cashng on $2.5 trillion of today, in the united states, and another $2.5 trillion of cash outside the united states. they want their tax rate reduced. they're almost paying nothing now because they are able to escape american taxes. they say lower the corporate tax rate so there'll be investment in america. it ain't so. in the last 20 years, there's been a cataclysmic change in the way in which corporations use their profits. in the 1970's, 60%, 50% or 60% of the after-tax profits of corporations went into building their business. building new equipment. new manufacturing plants. adding employees. increasing wages. the remain 40g% or so went to dividends. where are we today? 90%. less than 10% goes to increasing the company's manufacturing, the company's employment, wages for workers. where does the rest of it go? it goes to stock buybacks. and to dividends. it goes to shareholders. who are the shareholders? the top 1%. his is the scam of all time. they say we got to reduce taxes on corporations so that they will employ more americans. if only they would. if only they would. at&t, i'm sure you've heard of at&t. you know what the effective tax rate of at&t is? not 35%. not 30%. not even 20% as this tax bill would set as the maximum rate for corporations. the effective tax rate for the last 10 years for at&t has been 8%. 8%. and during that time, did they use that after-tax profit to add employees? to increase wages? no. they laid off 80,000 american workers. what did they use that money for? stock buybacks. orporate executives. $124 million to the c.e.o. two years ago. i could go on and on but i'd this debate mr. cicilline who has determined that there is a better deal, better wages, better future, better jobs. mr. cicilline, please. mr. cicilline: thank you. i thank my colleague and friend from california for not only organizing this evening's special order hour but for your long-term advocacy for working people in this country and your extraordinary advocacy for the people of the state of california. as you described what the republicans are attempting to do in this tax repro posal, it's clear to me that this isn't tax reform, it's not a tax bill, it's a tax scam. it's a scam in that the american people are being sold a bill of goods. all across this country tonight, there are millions of americans who will go to sleep tonight worrying about whether or not they're going to be able to make it through the next week. whether they have enough to pay their bills, take care of their family, to set aside a little for their retirement, and the reason that they're worried about this is they're not making enough money. and so what the republicans propose to do in this tax bill will make that problem worse. and so we've spoken over the last several months about an agenda that's really at the heart of this problem. it raises incomes for families. that reduces costs in people's lives and ensures they have the tools to be successful in the 21st century. and it's an agenda that focuses on addressing the fundamental and economic anxiety facing millions of american families across our country. we know it is because people are struggling. they're not making enough money. the same can't be said of the biggest corporations in this country where we're seeing record profits, wall street through the roof. so people understand something is not working right. in our economy. they're struggling. they haven't seen their wages go up for a very long time. america hasn't had a raise in a long time. corporate profits are through the roof. and stock market is through the roof. people are saying, this isn't working. and so what we should be doing is investing in the creation of good-paying jobs that will result in better jobs, better wages and a better future, but what this republican proposal does is it relies on this old republican theory, trickle down economics. if we just let people at the very top have more money, it'll trickle down to the rest of us and we all benefit. we know this doesn't work. we have seen time and time again this doesn't work. and part of the reason it doesn't work is because people at the top can only buy so much stuff. you see, the way you really grow the economy is you grow the middle class. make sure people have money, have a job, have money in their pockets to buy the goods and services business produces. you go to any small business in the state of rhode island and say so small business owners what do you need to add an employee, to add jobs to your company? they give you the same answer. i need customers. i need people to buy what i make and sell. raising the middle class is how you grow the economy. working people are creating the demand. what this tax scam does is gives 67% of the tax cuts to the top 1%. huge benefits for the biggest corporations in this country. further incentivizes companies to ship american jobs overseas. and to realize profits from doing that. cuts important deductions in the house bill at least for student loan interest, medical expenses, state and local taxes, it's going to raise taxes on 87 million americans. middle class folks. working people. and in order to finance this tax cut for the richest people in this country and the biggest corporations who don't need it, the middle class and working people will pay for it and the next generation is going to be burdened with $1.5 trillion in debt over the next 10 years. we're borrowing money to give tax cuts to big corporations, the wealthiest people in this country and we're going to shoulder the next generation with that burden. shame on them. so this conference committee is meeting and going to come up with some proposal that apparently is going to be pleasing to their donors. we know in the senate, they -- some of the donors had the provisions of the bill before members of the senate had them. they came out with handwritten notes in the margins, they were so desperate to get this done for the moneyed class. in fact, some of our colleagues admitted it and said, look, if we don't pass this, our donors said, don't bother calling us. we need tax reform that provides a tax cut to working people and the middle class. we could have done that in a bipartisan way. the last time there was tax reform, there were hundreds of witnesses, months of testimony. this stuff is complicated. what happened in the house? not one hearing. not one witness. jammed through as congressman raskin said in the dark of night, at the speed of light. the more the american people hear about this tax scam, they know it's not for them. they know they're not going to benefit. they know the same corporate special interests that have somp influence in this town helped write this bill and they're going to benefit from it. they are determined to jam this through, regardless of the public sentiment. 2-1, the american people are against this bill that number will grow the more people learn about it. doesn't seem to matter. that doesn't seem to matter. and so i thank the gentleman for inviting me tonight and allowing me to have a few minutes to speak. you've been here longer than i have, mr. garamendi. i can say with all honesty that the day that bill passed the house was one of the worst days i have ever been in this chamber because i know how this tax scam this effort by the republicans, is going to hurt the american people. i don't know, i've never seen a situation in which public sentiment was so strongly opposed to this measure and despite that our colleagues are moving forward with it. i don't know that you've seen an occasion like this before but i'd like to yield back to you and hear your thoughts on that. mr. gare mengke: thank you, mr. cicilline. actually, i have seen something like this before. last summer. repeal of the affordable care act, or at least the attempt to repeal the affordable care act, where 24 million americans were going to lose their health insurance. this house rammed it right through. just totally ignoring the welfare, and i'm not talking about corporate welfare, i'm talking about the well being of 24 million americans who stood to lose their insurance. and now they're being repeated. in fact, in this legislation, there is a provision that, well, it would only cost 13 million -- cause 13 million americans to lose their insurance. not only are they doing this tax saddam as you so well described it, but they put in a provision that would cause 13 million americans to lose their insurance over the next several years and four million next year. you go, what morality do you have? what are your values when you do that kind of thing? so yes, i've seen it. and we're seeing it once again. what is the value? it's not this. it's not the test of our progress. of what we do for those who have little. it's the upside down of that. it's how can we do more for those who have much. the top 1%. i don't know, mr. cicilline, you're from rhode island, i'm from california, i think the view from the ocean to ocean and somewhere in between there's got to be some sanity. if you will. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think the other thing that's very important to acknowledge here and i think we've heard speaker say this, we heard senator rubio make reference to this, the american people, i hope, understand that this is part one of a multipart story. our republican colleagues have made it very clear that this tax scam this sort of giveaway to corporate america and the richest in this country is just part one that next year, after you give away $1.5 trillion, unpaid for, you come back next year and say, we have no money. . we're going to have to cut social security, cut medicare, cut medicaid, cut pell grants, cut investments in health care, cut investments in rebuilding the infrastructure of our country. so our republican colleagues are setting this up as an effort to gut medicare and medicaid. let's be clear about that. you can't give away $1.5 trillion that you don't have and then next year they're going to be encouraged to say, gee, we have no money. we have to cut all these programs that middle class americans and working families rely on to survive and to prosper and to get a shot. and their answer is going to be, there's no moneyment and why isn't there any money? because we -- money. and why isn't there any money? because we gave it away to millionaires and billionaires and corporations and people who didn't need it and as a result you're going to pay for it by cutting medicare and cutting social security and cutting pell grants. the immorality of this is stunning. and so i think we have to not only defeat this tax scam, but call it out for what it is. this is an effort by our republican colleagues to finally get what they want. i think our speaker has said, i dreamed about it or i drank beer thinking about cuts to medicare and medicaid, they called them entitlements. these are not entitlements. these are earned benefits that people get after a lifetime of hard work. of playing by the rules. of doing what's right. this is phase one of a multiphase plan which will hurt working people in this country and we have to call them out on it. with that i yield back. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. cicilline. you're absolutely correct. it used to be, i think just two or three months ago, that on this floor you would hear the sound of the deficit hawks. would you hear them screaming, crying out about the huge deficit. and indeed we do have a huge deficit. look at the growth of the deficit. this is 2027 at end of this tax bill. it's growing at $500 million a year without the additional deficit created by the tax bill. and they would cry. they would lament the situation. and suddenly, maybe it's because it's winter, and like the canadian geese, they flew south. they've disappeared. they're nowhere to be found around washington, d.c. but i suspect with the new year, as the days grow longer, as it warms up, the deficit hawks will return. and they'll come back with a vengeance, just as you said. wait a minute. you didn't say it. you repeated what the speaker of the house of representatives said. what our republican colleagues voted for. in their budget proposal just ahead of this tax proposal. they said it very, very clear. they intend to take $500 billion out of medicare, right out of the health care for seniors. they intend, they did it in their budget, they did it in their words, the speaker did it in his own words, they intend to cut medicare $500 billion, medicaid, medicaid by $1.5 trillion. so that the deficit that they created with the tax scam that gives all of that money to the wealthy, and to the corporations, they're going to take it right out of the pockets of the elderly. they're going to take it right out of the pockets of the poor. and keep in mind that some 50% to 60% of medicaid money goes to seniors in nursing homes and in extended care facilities. something is dramatically wrong. where is the morality of this? where is the human value? where are the words? where are the words of f.d.r.? blowing in the wind. long gone. mr. cicilline, i've noticed we've been joined by one of our colleagues. i don't know if she wants to join us or not. mr. cicilline: a distinguished colleague. mr. garamendi: well, then, we'll just continue. mr. cicilline: if the gentleman would yield. you know, it's important to note here, i think my memory is correct on this, that the $1.5 trillion in debt which will be generated by this tax giveaway is exactly the same number that they cut from medicare and medicaid in the budget they just voted on. so we don't have to wonder whether that's the plan. they've already done it in the budget that they've proposed. as you said, the speaker, senator rubio and others have already acknowledged this. so this should be clear. we are going to vote and have already voted to give a tax cut -- mr. garamendi: would the gentleman yield? mr. cicilline: yes, of course. mr. garamendi: the word we is incorrect. mr. cicilline: you're right. they have already voted, they have already voted to cut $1.5 trillion, to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in this country, to the biggest corporations, and in order to pay for that, they intend to gut medicare and medicaid and a whole range of other very important investments we make, that our country makes in supporting and strengthening the middle class. it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that when next year, as you said, the deficit hawks return in the warm weather to say, oh, my goodness, there's no money, we're going to have to end the guarantee of medicare, we're going to have to cut social security, we're going to have to eliminate or cut pell grants. we're going to reduce all these investments which matter so much to working families in this country. and they are spent on doing that. they've tried to do it for the last several years. but not to the magnitude of success that they expect when they drain the coffers by giving away the money. which is exactly their strategy. and it's why we have to fight hard against this tax scam. because it's not just a tax giveaway to people who don't need it. it's what it will do to the economy. i think there was a "new york times" analysis of 38 economists . not one, and not any economist i have ever heard of yet has said in this tax cut will pay for itself. we keep hearing our republican colleagues, oh, this is going to pay for itself. the economy's going to grow and -- it's a pipe dream. there's not a single economist. republican, democrat, independent, who says these tax cuts will pay for themselves. it's because they won't. who will pay for them? the middle class of this country. i yield back. mr. garamendi: if the gentleman would yield for a moment. we've heard that argument over and over. if i'm not mistaken, the economy is working pretty close to maximum right now. 3%. the unemployment rate's 4%. or in that range. maybe a little lower. and the federal reserve is looking at increasing the interest rate to slow down the economy. and our republican friends say they need to beef up the economy. so tell me how it works, when you borrow more money from the federal government, when the federal government borrows more money for the deficit, that causes interest rates to go up because they're competing with other folks who want to borrow money. the federal reserve is increasing interest rates. so we can look for interest rates going up. the economy's slowing down. so how does this increase? it just doesn't work in macroeconomic terms. but i don't want to be an economist. i want to be just factual. so if i might for a moment, 10 popular deductions that the republicans are limiting or repealing in their tax bill. the list of horribles. limits to state and local tax deduction. big problem for california. big problem for new york. big problem for really every state. because every state has taxpayers that deduct state and local taxes. for california in my district, the 32% of the taxpayers use this deduction. and it's over $10,000. we're a high-cost state. housing and so forth. mr. cicilline: if the gentleman will yield. one thing to remember there is, so states that are investing in their infrastructure, investing in public safety, that are asking their local taxpayers to do their part, you punish them and you incentivize states that are not making that investment. it's bad public policy. mr. garamendi: you mentioned this one. but i think we need to focus on it. right now if you're going to go to college, you're going to have to almost, every person, borrow money. student debt, it's over $1,200,000,000 of student debt. and people, young men and women that graduate are burdened by that student debt. they're not buying cars. they're not buying and building a business. they're trying to pay off the debt. they're able to deduct trt on that debt. helps them -- deduct the interest on that debt. helps them out a little bit. so what do our republican friends do? they eliminate the interest deduction on student debt. you have spoken to this. i yield to you. mr. cicilline: i started -- i was just going to say that for young people, what this tax scam does is particularly damaging. because it not only saddles the next generation with $1.5 trillion of debt, but in addition to it, it makes their cost of pursuing higher education more expensive. who in their right mind thinks it's a good idea to make it harder or more expensive for young people to go to college? we ought to be making it easier, more affordable, less difficult. young people are already graduating with enormous debt, going to a tough job market in terms of what they can earn, and the republicans are taking away the deduction so they can finance the tax cut for the richest people in this country? mr. garamendi: press sighly. if the gentleman would yield -- precisely. if the gentleman would yield. precisely what they are doing. you talked earlier about a better plan. you talked about better education. about better opportunities. we know, and you and i have been on this floor talk about how -- talking about how to build the american economy. and in that discussion we know that the economy grows on research it. grows on research at universities -- research. it grows on research at universities all across this nation. so what do our republican friends do in their tax bill? they are going to make it extremely difficult to do research at the universities by placing a very onerous tax on graduate students who are working in those research institutions. right now graduate students get paid a stipend. a small. a money to do the research in those -- a small amount of money to do the research in those institutions. and they get their tuition free. our republican colleagues, for reasons that make no sense whatsoever, would tax that tuition that is not paid. so these young men and women in these graduate studies are going to have to pay a tax and they never receive any cash to pay the tax. what will be the result? universities across the entire nation are saying, stop it. don't do this. whether he not be able to hire graduate students to do research. because they cannot afford it. how stupid? if we're going to have a better economy, if we're going to have better jobs, better wages, education is the essential foundation for that. and yet what do they do here with this? they go right after the students. and when it comes time for cuts, you said it before. pell grants, other kinds of stipends, other kinds of assistance for education, gone. one of the fundamentals of the democratic program is a better education. a better educated work force. so that there will be better jobs, better wages, better economy. mr. cicilline: if the gentleman would yield. an important part of that is doubling the investment in apprenticeship programs, career and technical education, making sure we're crafting -- creating pathways to produce better wages, better jobs for a better future. and the last thing families need, because the focus has to be on raising family incomes, is a tax scam that's going to raise their taxes. that's exactly the reverse of what most middle class and working families -- they need more money in their pockets, not less. when i hear my republican colleagues say, this is a tax cut for the middle class, that is not true. for 87 million american, their taxes will go up. for many americans, the deductions that they take will be eliminated. and 67% of the tax cuts go to the top 1%. so it's important, again, that they're trying to jam this through quickly. because i think they understand that if they don't, the more the american people learn about, it the less they like it. and the more they're going to attempt to stop it. mr. garamendi: if the gentleman would yield. i've gone through three of the horribles here. student loans and the graduate deductions. we have seen disasters across america. floods, hurricanes, california fires. thousands of homes lost in katrina. so what does this bill yant tax thing do in -- brilliant tax thing do? it deducts the casualty loss deduction. so your home burns down in a fire. maybe it's one of the catastrophic fires that are now burning in california. your home is gone. comes time the next year to pay your taxes. you can deduct the loss that you had incurred. not anymore. not what our brilliant tax writers on the republican side would do. the casualty loss disappears. if that's not enough, you've lost your home, you've lost your job, you need to move. you need to move your family. they eliminate the moving expense deduction. how is a family going to get a better job? you used to be able, you would today be able to eliminate, you'd be able to write off the moving expenses. but not here with this tax bill. mr. cicilline: except if you're a corporation. they keep that deduction. so think about that. if you have to move to follow your job, you can't deduct that from your taxes. but if your company moves your job overseas, they can deduct the cost of moving your job. the corporation. mr. garamendi: but the individual can't deduct moving expense for moving for the job. something is wrong here. four of my family are teachers. it's a little thing, but it means everything. it's little. teachers are able to deduct from their taxes $250 for expenses that they have paid for classroom supplies. gone. it's gone. if you want to hurt the system, stick it to the teachers. why would you do that? it's not a big thing. it's a little thing. but it means everything to that classroom. it's the additional paper, the clayons, chalkboard, whatever. how small is that? is that a better, is that a better deal for america? don't think so. casualty loss, i mentioned. this one hurts. 300 homes in my district were lost in the october fires. casualty loss is gone. i don't know. maybe they'll be able to rebuild. but when it comes time to address that deficit, i can assure you that they will do everything they can to cut the programs that would support that family as they attempt to rebuild. so you get the program -- you lose on the front end, your tax deduction is gone. and you lose on the back end when you go to get mortgage assistance. there's got to be a better plan. got to be a better way to do it. mr. cicilline, over the years, in the last several months, you and your colleagues on the democratic caucus, you put together a program for a better life for americans. it involves much of what we talked about here. it involves a tax program that is balanced. one that provides the incentives for businesses to stay in the united states. we haven't talked about the corporate tax program that allows for territorial taxing. a specific effort in this legislation to encourage corporations to go offshore. , ere their taxes will never where their income, corporate income, will never be taxed. that's not a better plan. that's not a better program for building american jobs and wages. it's a way for corporations to ontinue to escape. someday soon, i would hope you would bring to this floor your colleagues, the three of you, who have put together this program on how we can build the american economy, where you can talk in specific ways about how we can have educational programs. apprenticeship training programs. job training programs. how to encourage corporations to invest in america. how we can make it in america. i'd love to join you. i'd love to talk about a bill we're soon going to introduce that would require when the export a strategic national asset, our oil and natural gas, that it be on american-built ships with american sailors. we could employ hundreds of thousands of people in our ship yards by changing the laws. by providing incentives for americans to stay here and work here. many -- mr. cicilline, i know this is your effort, i know you want to get to it, perhaps we could wrap up. mr. cicilline: absolutely. i thank the gentleman for including me and i look forward to the opportunity to come back and talk more about the economic agenda we have put forward as the house democrats, working with senate democrats, that's focused on better job, better wages for a better future, the creation of 10 million full-time, good-paying jobs, ex-panned investments in apprenticeships and work-based learning, ensuring that we are providing investments in career and technical education, affordable child care, redeucing the cost of prescription drug, rebuilding the infrastructure of our country an the list goes on and on. all focused on creating good-pay, full-time job, raising family incomes, reducing the cost that families bear on everything from cable bills to prescription drugs to health care and making sure people have the skills necessary for the jobs of the 21st century so they can be successful. it's exactly the opposite of what will be achieved in this republican tax scam. like forward to coming back with my distinguished colleague, ms. bustos of illinois and so we can talk about our economic agenda to focus on supporting people in this country and giving a better deal to the american people than the raw deal that they're getting from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. i thank the gentleman. mr. garamendi: thank you for joining us tonight. i really want to go back and plow this field one more time. i'm just a farm boy from california and i don't know that we have said it enough. nor have we said it all. we do know in this tax scam there's $1,400 billion reduction in corporate taxes with no assurance that's going to create jobs in america but quite the opposite. it'll be a great boon for the super wealthy who will see their stock values go up as that additional after-tax income for corporations is spent on stock buybacks, dividends, and executive pay. we know that the alternative minimum tax will disappear, and that's about $900 billion again, top income earners. we know that in california and across the nation that the state and local tax deduction will be gone. that'll probably cost those 32% of the taxpayers, tax filers in my district that use that deduction, probably cost them $1,000 to $2,000 of additional taxes. we know this will go on and on. we know that the deficit is going to be increased. there may be some growth. there's been one analysis that says there may be a couple hundred billion dollars of growth but it's not going to trillion r the $1.5 deficit on top of the existing deficit. we know the deficit talks will be back, they're going to come back and cut medicare, medicaid, and i know they're going to take it out of health care for the poor, we know they want to end insurance and the affordable care act for 13 million americans. all of that has been laid out. we know all those things. and in case you're one of those people who have very high medical costs like a senior, 50 years of age, that has a serious medical condition and you've been able to deduct from your taxes the medical costs, forget it. our republican friends, they're eliminating the medical cost deduction. you go, why would you do that? why would you take after people that have serious medical problems? their out of pocket costs are covering all of that? this is a long story. but for my colleagues here on the floor, democrat and republican, be very, very careful. because this particular tax bill should it ever become law, it's going to take this nation a decade, maybe two decades to get out from underneath the extraordinary burden that it's going to place on the american economy. and on the working men and women and the poor in america. the things we need to do, mr. cicilline talked about infrastructure. president says, i'm going to have $1 trillion infrastructure program. really? really? you're going to do that? you've just ripped the guts out of the american treasury, where is the money? oh, it's going to be private money. no, you've already given upen that. your words, not mine. so where's the public investment? $5 trillion. disappears. $5 trillion. some of it made up by the elimination of these deductions i've talked about. but still, there's at least $1 trillion hole and the only way they can possibly make up that after giving away all that money to the corporations, all of that money to the super wealthy, and did i mention the estate tax? i probably should have. the house bill eliminated the estate tax. what does that mean to our esteemed president? well, he says he's worth $10 billion. who am i to argue with him? if he is, and he were to die, it means $4 billion less tax to his children. $4 billion. now others say he's only worth $4 billion. so let's take $4 billion. for his children it's a tax reduction of $1 billion. what does that amount to? that's what this is about. this is all about the wealthy. this is all about those who have much and it is most definitely ot about what f.d.r. said, etched in stone, f.d.r. memorial. the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is rather whether we who e enough for those le. too lit -- too little. so, where is our heart. o what is our moral value? is it morality, is it right to add more to those who have much? or sit -- is the purpose, the central value of this nation, the opposite? to add more to those who have too little. that's where i am. that's where my democratic colleagues are. and i'm afraid my republican colleagues are proving the opposite. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. kelly, for 30 minutes. ms. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask for unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kelly: thank you. i yet again rise along with my colleagues because americans are dying and this house is doing nothing. they are dying every day in their homes, in our school yards, and yes, even at events hosted by members of this house. and still, we do nothing. mr. speaker, every day, 93 americans lose their lives to gun violence and still this haas has in the acted. if anything, last week the majority passed through a dangerous bill that will put more lives, especially the lives of law enforcement officers, at risk. mr. speaker, these are fathers and mothers, daughters and sons, beloved friends and dear colleagues. these are people in every one of our communities and every one of our districts. not one member of this house can come to the floor and say that their community, their neighbors, their district hancht been affected by gun violence. not one member. yet we still do nothing as bullets fly an mothers cry. we do nothing as we lose children and police officers. the death, destruction, and carnage continue and still we do nothing. in less than a decade two members of this house have been shot a staffer murdered and even that can't move us to act and save american lives. mr. speaker, at what cost does the continued silence come? early this year i pledged to read the names of 5,950 gun violence victim into the congressional record a number that should have special significance to the speaker. today we continue honoring those taken from us by gun violence and pledge to honor their legacy through action that saves lives. so i ask my social media followers to share their personal stories about gun violence has torn families and communities apart. these are their names and stories. lenore traper a community activist working to stop violence. kenny mitch ill served three tours of duty in afghanistan and kuwait , he last his life to gun violence in america, leing bhichede three son, one of whom will never meet his father. thomas lee was killed in harvey, 2008. s, on august 13, patricia may springer. malcolm doe di, killed leaving a memorial day party, he just purchased a home, getting arried, was on the done's list and had a 17-month-old child. his mom asked me to read his name. john thomas larimer gave his life protecting two friends at the aurora, colorado, theater shooting. jesse guay was also killed at the tragedy in aurora, colorado, her mother, sandy, asked me to read her name today. tomorrow should have been his 30th birthday. sterling grment mckenzie. ramsay cook. lachey cree tan shot five time base boyfriend in 1996 she survived, she asked me to tell her story. she still lives with those bullets. kenneth bowen, diane moskus, the mother of four girls, murdered while stopping at her church on her way to the hospital where she worked. her sister charlene asked me to reed her name. lindsey key. calvin thompson jr. ken sell dix, killed in an accident with a loaded but unlocked gun. bill venable, 17, and his father, billy venable. tim boyd of chicago heights. carrie parks killed in a drive-by shooting. her frevend lucy asked me to read her name. she said carrie was my best friend, she was playing out in her front yard like she always did. she was full of life, love, and smiles. maurice hobbs. betsy lowther who left behind a husband, daughter and grandson. her niece amy asked me to read her name, said her aunt was a generous, loving, vibrant woman who struggled with depression. rarry -- larry kareem, 17, gay len gibson, 18, ricky riggins. joyce penbaker, i was asked to read her name by his son. he said, i chose to tell my daughter about her grandmother and how she died by suicide when i was very young. i wanted my daughter to know what motivated me to be active in the gun movement. patrick mckinley. he was killed in front of his home on new year's eve in 2004, a day that should be a celebration of new beginnings. steven sheers, kimberly thomas and her father keith. . she left behind two sons and several beautiful grandchildren. her cousin, edward, asked me to read her name. now, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to congresswoman clark from the commonwealth of massachusetts. since her election to congress, congresswoman clark has been a dedicated leader in efforts to protect the health and safety of american families. congresswoman clark has deeply -- cares deeply about this issue and was the architect of the gun violence prevention sit-in. congresswoman clark. ms. clark: first i want to thank my colleague from illinois, congresswoman kelly. i want to thank you for your leadership in this fight to reduce gun violence. and for bringing us together this evening as you have so many times, speaking so eloquently about gun violence, the effect in your district and around our country. tonight i'd like to focus on a particular type of gun violence. it's one that happens every 16 hours in america. when a woman is fatally shot by a former or current intimate partner. here are some more horrific facts. eight out of 10 gun deaths involve intimate partners, where the victims are women. the majority of mass shooters kill their intimate partner during their rampage. and the perpetrators of domestic violence are the shooters in more than half of all mass shootings. abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if their abuser has access to a firearm. all of this adds up to a grizzly reality. american women are 16 times more likely to be killed by gunshot than women in any other developed country. you don't have to look very hard to see there's something very wrong with this picture. the most powerful nation in the world, with our proud tradition of innovation and ingenuity, appears to be completely impotent in reducing gun violence. at least that's what our republican leaders would like us to believe. we do not debate or have votes on legislation that can help a domestic violence victim who wants to protect her family, or wants to prevent her abusive partner from getting their hands on a gun. but if you're the gun lobby, you get a vote. to allow those with a history of domestic violence to access guns. i'm here to remind my colleagues that these actions come with a devastating price. the names i'm going to read tonight are names of massachusetts women whose domestic abusers have shot them to death. these are women who have died just in the last five years in massachusetts. they are the ones who never get a vote in this chamber. they are the ones the majority as not even tried to help. eugenea gomez montero. arcelus valdez deleon. nicole white. amanda glover. janine o'connor. kelly sugarman. yahira hernandez. lisa trubnakova. michelle bautista. ma tilleda gavin -- matilda gavin. mabilda moreno. elizabeth coin. man timbings ta pallone -- romanita pallone. julie treadwell. glomerez martinez. onna zolo. taishiana atkins. elinda torres. keosha gillmor. and laurie lavange. these women and the other victims of gun violence deserve better. and we are doing nothing to prevent future deaths. these are just a portion of those who die every single day in this country. we can do better and we must do better. and again i thank my colleague for all her work to make sure that we fulfill a promise to keep our families at home secure. yield back. ms. kelly: thank you, congresswoman, for your word. i'm sorry you had to read those names. maybe as we go on, things will change. now i'd like to yield five minutes to the congresswoman from the great state of california and a member of the appropriations committee. since her election to congress, congresswoman lee has been a fearless and dedicated leader on ending poverty and health disparities in our nation's community, including gun violence. like many who serve in this house, she is someone who has attended too many funeral, comforted too many depreesking mothers, -- grieving mothers, fathers and colleagues because of gun violence. congresswoman lee. ms. lee: thank you and i first want to thank you, congresswoman kelly, for your tremendous leadership on so many fronts. especially as chair of our congressional black caucus health brain trust. and for your tireless work in helping us focus on the fact that gun violence should be treated as a public health crisis. and that it is just that. and the congress needs to do something to stop this epidemic of gun violence that's destroying so many communities all around the country. on an average day, 93 innocent lives in america are cut short due to gun violence. these senseless deaths also disproportionately impact communities of color. as a representive from california's 13th congressional district, i know all too well the devastating impact that gun violence has on our communities. in fact, the center for -- centers for disease control recently reported that ever a can american children have the highest rates of firearm -- african-american children have the highest rates of firearm mortality overall. they are 10 times more likely than white children to be killed i go guns. latino children are device as likely by white children to be killed i go guns. but no child, and i mean no child, regardless of their background, their wealth or not, their zip code or their race, should be killed by gun violence. no child. it pains me, and i know it pains their parents and family members, to know that such promising young people have left us too soon. so tonight let me just read the names of a few of oakland's children who have lost their lives to gun violence this year. annibal andreas ramirez, who was only 13. he was oakland's youngest gun violence this year -- this year and he was shot outside the new walnut plaza community center in east oakland. luis rokitas, who was 17 when his friend accidentally shot him. what in the world was that gun doing around this young boy? deangelo hall, who was 17 when he once again accidentally shot himself with a stolen gun. keith laurence, who was 17 and a student at skyline high school, keith was found shot dead in a parking lot. soane mosea who was 18 when he and his brother were shot by men outside of their east oakland home. joaquin bird. joaquin was 18. and he was also a student at skyline high school. he was shot during a fight at a ast food restaurant. sultan bay who was 18. college bound and had dreams of becoming a computer engineer. he was shot while picking up a friend. mr. speaker, this only happens in america. there are too many guns in america. at some point we have to stand up and say enough is enough. before i yield, let me just say that five years ago this week a deranged gunman walked into sandy hook elementary school and massacred 20 children. 20 beautiful elementary schoolchildren who we continue to remember murdered in cold blood. and yet republicans in congress refuse to lift a finger in support of legislation to prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening. shame. shame on every republican who chooses devotion to the n.r.a. over the lives of americans. we simply must take action to bring commonsense gun reform to our nation's gun laws. that's what the american people sent us here to do, to govern in their best interest. that's why we stand here tonight with you, congresswoman kelly, and demand that the speaker take action and bring commonsense gun legislation for a vote. give us a vote, mr. speaker. thank you and i yield the balance of my time. mr. kelly: kel thank you -- ms. kelly: thank you, congresswoman lee. your words remind me of what we hear sometimes. that we need to wait before we do anything. that this group or that group just died and we're already talking about what we're going to do. and it's been five years since newtown. and we still have done nothing. so thank you for your comments. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to the congresswoman from orlando, congresswoman val demings. congresswoman demings sees this issue through a number of lenses. a mom, a wife of law enforcement, and a career law enforcement officer her certificate. mrs. demings: thank you so much, mr. speaker. first of all, i want to echo the comments i've heard from other colleagues to thank my colleague from illinois, representative kelly, for her unwavering commitment to this issue. mr. speaker, i rise to speak for those who have died in the united states as a result of senls gun violence -- senseless gun violence. i want to reflect on this evening of where we've been, where we are now, and where we must go from here. when i took office one year ago, i was so excited to give my first speech on the house floor. but i never dreamed my first speech would be a tribute to a former friend and colleague. my first floor speech was to honor sergeant deborah clayton, a law enforcement officer who was shot and killed while trying to apprehend a murder suspect. a person who should have never had a gun in his possession in the first place. since then, two more law enforcement officers from central florida, officer matthew scott baxter, and sergeant richard samuel howard, have been shot and killed. both officers of the kissimmee police department. i was sworn into congress just six months after the mass shooting in orlando at the pulse night club. where 49 people who were involved in what my bishop likes to call a late-night fellowship, not doing anything wrong, not in he wrong place, were killed by a lone gunman. at that time it was the worst mass shooting in modern american history. but in the short time since then , the number 49 has been surpassed as 59 people were killed in las vegas just a few weeks ago. what this says is things are not getting better. and congress has failed to take responsible actions. since the newtown shooting, congress has held at least 50 moments of silence for the victims of gun violence. but, mr. speaker, please tell me , how does a moment of silence protect the next victim? i join the victims who have died of gun violence. the victims deserve to be remembered, but their families deserve recognition and the victims and their families deserve action. john 13. 17 says now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. well, we now them these things. in other words, when you know better, mr. speaker, you are supposed to do better. we also know that the vast majority of the american people across the nation want action. as a former law enforcement officer, i had a duty to enforce the laws to protect the innocent . and mr. speaker, as members of congress, we have a duty to enact laws that protect the innocent. we need to stand up to the gun lobby and take on their indiscriminate sales of bump stocks that make weapons deadlier or more suited for criminal violence. we need to strengthen programs hat work as the national instant back gound system and i continue to oppose concealed carry reciprocity, as i did last week on the floor, because it would allow persons from outside your state to bring their firearms anywhere in your state, making the job of law enforcement officers on the street who have the responsibility of sorting it all out, more difficult and potentially more dangerous. mr. speaker, the men, women, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters gunned down in our country deserve remembrance. they also deserve courage from their leaders. they deserve action from their leaders. and i once again call on this ody to provide some. baxter,clayton, matthew and sam you ell howard, again, i thank my colleague from illinois for her unwavering commitment and leadership on this issue. and mr. speaker, i yield back. ms. kelly: thank you for reminding of the law enforcement officers who lost their lives protecting us. i would like to yield to five he liz beth esty from the great state of connecticut. she is a tireless advocate for commonsense legislation that lives. e american like many who serves in this house she has comforted and continues to comfort so many grieving mothers and fathers because of gun violence. ms. esty: thank you, robin, representative kelly has been a stalwart voice for those who are ll too often forgotten in what we are seeing happen in this country, a voice for those who are not lost because sometimes you say lost to gun violence. these are not lives that are lost but ripped from us, brutally ended and in the five years since the horrific shootings in new town, in my district, 170,000 americans have been taken from us, sons and daughters of this great country, 170,000 souls. we should just reflect on that, what that means, what each and every one of those people might have done if they had lived and representative kelly, thank you for being a tireless voice, which we need in these challenging times. mr. speaker, five years ago tonight, it was called and snowy in connecticut, the families of knewtown picked up their kids and no one having any thought on december 12 that in two days their lives and america's lives would be changed by the reality of what gun violence has done and is doing to this country. and so tonight, i want to read the names of the 20 children and six educators who were brutally gunned down and murdered in andy hook elementary school. charlotte bacon, daniel barton, engel, vino, olivia josephine gay, ana marquez-greenee, dylan hockley, katherine m, hubbard, chase, jesse lewis, mcdonald, ann marie rphy, emily parker, jack pinto, noah possiblener, kravetti, jessica, half yeoh richmond, lauren rousseau, sota, e lock, victoria wyatt. wheeler, alison mr. speaker, we can and we must do better in this great country and do better for all those who have been taken from us. we must do better by taking action in this, the people's house. the people are watching. the people are waiting and they do serve us to do our best. and not to honor only with words of silence and prayers, important as thoser but to honor even more importantly by taking action to save future lives. again my thanks and admiration, robin to you, representative kelly for her exrired leadership and persistence. i thank you and yield back. ms. kelly: i thank you for your words and commitment and voice in making those 26 lives will never be forgot quen. we have been reading names for nearly half an hour and we have stacks and stacks of names, the names of americans that have been taken by gun violence. the list of names exow grows and grows. children are murdered in their kindergarten classroom, mothers and children are killed in cracker barrel parking lots. a smart and talented young woman who performed at barack obama's united nations must be waiting for five years. at country concerts, nightclubs and congressional baseball practice have been shooting gallery and the majority call for moments of silence. it's time to call out from the gun lobby checkbook and do anything to save american lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the motion to adjourn. ms. kelly: i ask that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate.

Related Keywords

Qatar , Afghanistan , Nevada , United States , Monterey , Georgia , East Texas , Pennsylvania , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Russia , Connecticut , Arizona , Kuwait , Massachusetts , Libya , Spain , New York , Iran , Texas , Atlanta , Washington , Rhode Island , Florida , Illinois , Santa Cruz County , Jordan , Somalia , Iraq , New Jersey , Colorado , Saudi Arabia , Ohio , Orlando , Americans , America , Russian , Iranian , Spanish , American , Keith Laurence , Kenneth Bowen , Larry Kareem , Mike Flynn , Gomez Montero , Loretta Lynch , Daniel Barton , Jesse Lewis , Christopher Steele , Glenn Simpson , Maurice Hobbs Betsy Lowther , Kenny Mitch , Billy Venable Tim Boyd , Andreas Ramirez , Kelly Sugarman , Beth Esty , Thomas Lee , Martinez Onna , Nelly Orr , Moreno Elizabeth , Emily Parker , Patrick Mckinley , Deborah Clayton , John Yates , Oakland Luis , Jeannie Wray , Calvin Thompson Jr Ken , Michelle Bautista Ma , Robert Mueller , Glen Simpson , Christopher Wray , Lauren Rousseau , Bruce Orr , Michael Flynn , Sally Yates , Pallone Julie Treadwell , John Thomas Larimer , Valdez Deleon Nicole , Barack Obama , Mckenzie Ramsay Cook , Las Vegas , Dylan Hockley , Jesse Guay , Andrew Mccabe , Springer Malcolm Doe , Amanda Glover Janine , Ricky Riggins Joyce , Hernandez Lisa , Hillary Clinton , Samuel Howard ,