Transcripts For CSPAN US House Of Representatives Special Or

freedom and oppression better than service men and women. they fight our nation's wars, they risk their lives to defend our constitution. sadly, the threat to our constitution's not just from foreign enemies. sometimes sadly the right here in the halls of congress. in my short three months here i've seen attempted infringements on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and 10th amendments. hat's hard to believe. just this past summer we had members of congress obstructing the people's work here. sitting on the house. an agenda that seeks to deprive us of the very rights our founding fathers sought to preserve with the constitution and the bill of rights. anyone can do a plane reading of the constitution and see the right to keep and bear arms is named right there, to be applied at the individual level. the rest of the bill of rights is almost certainly talking about -- is certainly talking about rights at the individual level and the second amendment's no exception. justice scalia wrote in the heller decision, nowhere else in the constitution does it a right attributed to the people refer to anything other than an individual right. the people refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. we start therefore with a strong presumption that the second amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all americans. you see, for more than 100 years, the 14th amendment's been used to link the rest of the bill of rights to the states and somehow the same folks that are onboard with applying the first amendment to states, whether it's free speech or voting rights, freedom of religion in some cases, they're reluctant to let the same be true for the second amendment. when they want a uniform view of things that aren't even addressed in our constitution, like marriage, they're not willing to apply the same logic to our constitution with something that's very plainly stated. the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. i take that right very seriously. those of us who have served in the military know all too well what a society looks like when freedoms are squashed. we've seen these places and met the people who have lived under tyranny. our founding fathers knew the battle between freedom and tyranny too well. many sacrificing their lives in the struggle to establish this nation. it is not an accident that they enshrine that right to keep and bear arms squarely right after the right to speech and freedoms of religion. it is so essential to stave off oppressers that we cannot be truly free without it. after these men sacrificed life and limb, let us not besmirch their legacy by subjecting it to an agenda which would seek to take away this freedom, one firearm or one freedom at a ime. the threats are real. it's hard to imagine. the not just rhetoric -- the not just rhetoric. those word -- it's not just rhetoric. those words, freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. sounds like political rhetoric but it is just so real. and we have to take it very seriously. it's an honor to be here and talk about it. madam speaker, i yield back my ime. >> i want to thank my colleagues and i really want to express what a privilege it is to serve in this house. i believe in this country. and this exceptional way of life. mr. gibson: not that we don't have challenges. we certainly have those. there's nothing that we can't solve together. we also need to recognize that what we did in the 18th century , which allowed for the most freedom and the opportunity and in the history of man kind, is not a birth right. the not a foregone conclusion. every generation has to defend it, they have to defend it. from threats from abroad and also be vigilant for unintentional or perhaps intentional encroachment here at home. our colleagues here, we believe deeply in protecting this exceptional way of life. as i stated earlier, we love our family, we love our friends, we love our communities. we want to ensure that they are safe. we're ready to work with our colleagues on that. as we do, we need to keep forefront this exceptional way of life, which the first generation of americans fought to provide for us and that every successive generation has fought to preserve. and that we also take commonsense approaches that are based on data and that are focused on actually solving the problem. we identified some of those problems tonight. in areas where we think we can find some common ground and i mentioned one of them, which we already have. in terms of the law enforcement and cracking down on the narco traffickers. moism, -- madam speaker, we're here tonight because we also wanted to make it very clear that while there are passions and emotions in every direction , we wanted to make it very clear that what we hold so dear , this exceptional way of life, the liberties, the bill of rights, the constitution, this is something we will defend. we have defended and we continue to defend. may god bless this country. madam speaker, with that we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. pocan: thank you very much, madam speaker. i am here on behalf of the progressive caucus, which is in charge of this hour. we are here today to talk about the trans-pacific partnership and trade. the people in the progressive caucus have been some of the leaders in the movement to make sure that we have trade deals that protect american jobs and lift our wages here in the united states. we want to make sure there are environmental protections across the globe. we want to make sure our food is safe and our prescription drugs are affordable. we want to make sure there's human rights in countries that do trade with the united states and we want to make sure we're addressing issues like currency manipulation. all of those issues are important when you want to advance trade. no one in this room is against trade. we're all for increasing our ability to have more exports and to have imports into this country. but you have to have trade deals that work on behalf of the american worker and all too often past trade deals have cost us jobs here in the united states. they've made our wages continue to be depressed. and that's not a good trade deal in the minds of the members of the progressive caucus and that's why we are here at this hour to talk specifically about what is good trade, why we're skeptical of the trans-pacific partnership and why we especially don't want to see a vote during the lame duck session. after the election in november, with people who are no longer going to be serving in congress , to be taking that vote at that time would be an especially bad idea. today is a national call-in day of action on the trans-pacific partnership. there's over 90 public interest groups that have been calling our offices. i've heard my staff picking up the phone over and over and over again today, responding to people who want to make sure that we have trade deals that take care of all those things that we talked about, all the things that members of the progressive caucus have been leaders in this congress trying to advocate for. in conjunction with the tens of thousands of people who have called congress today to urge their members not only to not support the trans-pacific partnership, because it's really not a trade deal, there's parts of it about trade, this is a rewriting of corporate rules that could have huge ramifications. 40% of the world's gross domestic product is involved in this one large deal. and we want to make sure we get it right, not just fast. and that's why we're joining with these groups today to make sure that people know what's in the trans-pacific partnership and why it's vitally important that we don't take this up uring a lame duck session. who both oppose the transpacific partnership. this should be something that, as much respect as i have, enormous respect for president obama, we should allow the next president to address trade, especially when a deal like this has so much controversy and so many questions about it. we are here during the next hour, we are going to hear from various members of the progressive caucus. s can my honor to yield time to one of my colleagues from the great state of california, the 17th district of california is very lucky to have a representative who has been such an outspoken advocate for middle class families, not just from california but across the country. i would like to yield as much time as needed to my colleague from the 17th district of california, representative mike honda. mr. honda: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to voice my opposition to t.p.p., an unfair trade deal which will hurt our nation's workers and give corporations dangerous new rights. an alarming expansion of the investor state dispute process. t.p.p. will give corporations a legal weapon to enforce their agenda on sovereign nations. corporations have already used isds to bring over 700 lawsuits against more than 100 governments around the world. . my home state of florida bapped the use as an additive in gasoline because it was polluting the groundwater, the canadian company sued. costing the state and federal government millions of dollars to defend the case. t.p.p. would extend these rights to 1,000 additional corporations, owning more than 9,200 subsidiaries. we need to stop foreign corporations from suing the u.s. government before accountable panels of corporate lawyers. while giving these rights to corporations, t.p.p. will provide little benefit to the american economy. widely cited -- cited estimate of 0.13% growth in u.s. g.d.p. under t.p.s. is over 10 years -- t.p.p. is over 10 year. it's not an annual gain. a gain that benefits only a few is undone by the negative impact t.t.p.p. will have on workers at home and abroad. under nafta, 700,000 american jobs move to mexico to take advantage of mexican workers making 30% less than american workers. even after adjusting for differences in living costs. while t.p.p. requires nations to implement minimum wage, minimum wage laws, nothing in the language of the deal prevents them from setting the wage as low as five cents an hour. t.p.p. is a small win for high-income earners at the huge expense of low-income workers. t.p.p. sls lacks strong provisions to deal with countries with repulsive human rights abuses, including human trafficking and intolerance of the lgbt community. singapore, malaysia and brew anyway criminalize same-sex relations. rewarding them with a trade agreement is really very unacceptable. throughout my tenure in congress, i have evaluated each trade agreement based on whether it ensures strong, clear and enforceable label, environmental and human rights standards. i do not believe that the proposed trans-pacific partnership agreement that was sent to congress meets my standards. it does not deserve to be considered during a lame duck session. as it is currently written, t.p.p. should not be brought to a vote. it should not be brought to a vote period. yield back. mr. pocan: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to thank the gentleman from the 17th district of california for his words. as he mentioned, there are a number of provisions that you can start to drill down to, in the giant vols that make up the trans-pacific partnership. there are provisions that i think the american people have no idea, in fact, i would argue there are people in congress who have no idea of what's in the trans-pacific marneship. just one of those provisions that representative honda mentioned is the investor state dispute settlement process. the isds provisions. where you have a three-person tribunal of unelected, unaccountable people, people who are corporate lawyers one day and then fair ash traitors of the law another day -- arbitrators of the law another day. that set up this separate legal process from the american judicial system that international companies, multinational companies, can access if they want to sue the local government for a law that they've passed, that they think affects their future profit. think about it. . think about it. everyone else in the country has to follow the court system we have in the united states. as a multinational company, because of the provisions in the transpacific partnership, decide they want to go around that system and go to three corporate lawyers who form a tribunal under this isds provision and want to challenge that law they can sue for monetary damages. think about it. for example, if the state of wisconsin, where i come from, were to has a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage and it could be challenged potentially by multinational corporations saying that's going to affect their corporate profit, they could see the taxpayers of wisconsin over that law. this isn't just something we are dreaming up. we have seen over and over again countries in trade deals be sued because of environmental laws and other laws they've passed that they said affect their future profits. it doesn't happen in the american legal system. now as bad as this sounds, to skirt the american legal system, a special system for multinational corporations, let me tell you what's even worse about that provision. it's only a tribunal for those corporations, but the parts of the trade agreement that affect labor law or environmental law don't have access to the same provision. they have to go through the normal legal court system. recently, there was a labor dispute with the country of hon tour rass with a company. it took us six years to get that resolved. so for environmental law or labor law, for things that are going to affect most people, we still have to flole the court system which is the way it should be, but for multinational corporations, they have these special streamlined process with basically their own arbitrators making the decision, allowing you to sue taxpayers within a local government or state government that may pass a law. that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. that's just one of those provisions that is a real problem. another thing that mike honda from the great state of california said was he talked about some of the human rights violations and there are explicit human rights violations in some of the countries that don't respect things like single mothers, who don't respect the lgbt community. those are things we absolutely can't allow. our country has done so much to work with other countries to raise human rights standards. and yet in this bill, this trade agreement, the transpacific partnership, it does not have those things in place to make sure that we've got those protections for so many different people and so many different provisions. so what he mentioned are just a couple of the provisions. let me mention something that i think people don't know about. as i mentioned at the begin, the transpacific partnership is made up of countries that are going to make up 40% of the world's gross domestic product. it's one thing to have a trade agreement with a country that's similar, like canada. or a country like japan that does a lot of similar goods that they're producing. but we have countries in here like vietnam where they don't allow trade unions, where people make on average 65 cents an hour. as you can tell, there's twoing to be a huge difference in a trade agreement you have with a country like canada and a country like vietnam. but in this trade agreement,ern is lumped together. there's a long lead time that vietnam would have to try to get their act together, especially just around issues like having a trade union, much less around wage issues. but you can just imagine that if you open that door to have trade preferences for a country like vietnam at 65 cents an hour, yes, i will contend that we will lift their wages ever so slightly. but i will also tell you based on evidence we've seen from past trade deals that you will further depress our wages here. you will keep the wages flat because that's what happens in these trade agreements. and more jobs that are done here in the u.s. will go overseas. i say this from someone who grew up in a very industrial town. i grew up in kenosha, wisconsin. we made autos for the entire time i grew up in that town. when i was growing up, american motors company, we made pacers and gremlins and some cars that people actually bought. but thousands and thousands of people work at those auto plants and supported their families with good, family-supporting, middle class wages. that's the type of jobs that we need here in this country. but those jobs rvent going to happen as part of these trade agreements. i watched in my hometown of kenosha, after american motors sold to renault and they sold to chrysler and chrysler made engines for jeep. at some point, finally, they went away. and we lost what was over 5,000 jobs at one time in the city of kenosha, wisconsin. the ripple effects of the industries that fed into that country. -- into that company. all too often we matched those jobs go to mexico, canada, and other places because of weages. another thing for almost three decades of my life, i've had a specialty printing business. one thing we do is screen print t-shirts. i've been buying t-shirtsed a goods like that for nearly 30 years. over the years, i have watched the u.s. mills go away. and more and more of those jobs have gone to countries literally that are paying wages that are subpoverty. i have gone to el salvador and met with people who work in the sweat shop, where people make $3 a day. and because that sweat shop area is in a special free trade zone, not near where people live they spend $1 of that to get there. this was a cup of decades ago but the wages with still severely depressed. those jobs that were in america now are going to countries. one of the things we're hearing out of this agreement is central american countries are afraid they'll lose jobs to places like vietnam because they can have even lower wages. none of those things will help the american worker. there's a reason why this fall when you talk and hear from candidates running for office, we have candidates running for president for the two major parties both opposing the transpacific partnership as currently written. we have candidates for congress and the senate running ads talking about a better vision for what trade should be. with all of that going on, it makes no sense that we would take this up after the november election, in that little period of time between november 8 and the end of the year when we're going to have a new congress sworn in in january, to take that up with the congress so people who may not be serving here and may be looking for jobs from the very companies that advocate for the sweetheart, multinational deals is a huge, huge mistake. that's why the 90 organizations are today having a day of action. tens of thousands of calls coming into washington, d.c. to try to make sure congress does the right thing around trade. that means making sure that we have trade deals that, one, protect american jobs, and hopefully grow american jobs. that protect our wages and hopefully grow our wages. ones that protect us when it. co-s to things like food safety, ones that protect us on things like pharmaceutical prices. we want trade agreements that make sure you don't have a country, you can have the best language in a trade deal but if you allow currency manipulation, you can make that language virtually meaningless and there's nothing in the transpacific partnership agreement that addresses currency manipulation which is a huge, huge problem. so those are some of the things we're trying to get done, much less international human rights provision that should be in any meaningful trade agreement. so it's with that, many of us are going to be talking about this over the next few months. but tonight i'd like to yield time to another one of my colleagues who has been one of the leaders in congress on this issue. he represents new york state's 20th district. it is my honor to yield some time, madam speaker, representative tonko. mr. tonko: thank you. i thank the gentleman from wisconsin for yielding. thank you, representative pocan for leading us in what i think is a very meaningful discussion this evening and special order. trade, absolutely critical to our economy. but fair trade. not free trade. a fair trade situation where our manufacturers, our businesses are operating on a level playing field. where they have an equal shot at being able to go forward and be productive and provide for jobs, dignity of work for americans coast to coast. recently, i talked to an individual, representative pocan, in my district who had to close his doors and it was years of assistance that we provided when i was yet in the state assembly and then after in the u.s. congress, to assist them so they could be competitive. but their major competitors were in china and if we try to talk about public-private partnerships, something that don't exist out there, we're not getting it. it was the public-private cozyness of china that destroyed competitive edge of a business in my community. one that had spun fibers for many defense contracts. and they alluded to the fact that in some cases, the government, china, will own the building, the government, china, will pay the utility bill. they will offer subsidies to the industry, and then as was just mentioned by my colleague from wisconsin, they'll manipulate the currency. all four of those items dragged down the opportunity for american workers. it dulls the competitive edge that we should be able to enjoy in the marketplace. we build smarter. and it doesn't have to be cheaper. but when these sorts of tie nam exs are working against -- of dynamics are working against us, we're really swimming upstream with very difficult challenges facing us. now this factory owner had told me if you take away one or two of the items i just mentioned, we win easily. if you take three of the four away, we're a strong winner. and if you take all four away, winners, hands down. so it's about fairness. it's about having an equal shot at the opportunity to function in the international marketplace and be able to be creative and innovative. with all sorts of intellectual capacity that comes, oftentimes, with research that should be another counterpart to this equation. when we do that, we are the strength beyond belief. so our efforts here in the house, representative pocan, representative slauther from upstate new york, representative delauro from connecticut, a great number of us who have been working together, representative doggett from texas a great number of us working to make certain that our colleagues know about the damage inflicted if we go forward with the current format of the t.p.p. the transpacific partnership. it's important for us to be pro-worker, pro-business, pro-trade in a free -- or rather a fair capacity. not a free and open ended concept that has been part and parcel to negotiated deals before this. now what i hear often times is that the biggest problem that has come when talking to manufacturers in north yeast u.s. is that -- northeast u.s. is many of the arrangements in the contracts were never implemented. the contracts may have been a little weak or unfair to begin with, but when you add to that the lack of genuine implementation, then you really have compounded the damage and the pain is real and it is the exodus of many, many jobs in upstate new york, that is the territory of the 20th congressional district. now, mark, i have to tell you, i am the host community, my 20th congressional seat in new york, eastern end to the erie canal corridor. that gave birth to a number of milltowns. they took a little town called new york and said they were going to make it a port and then by building the canal we developed a necklace of communities dubbed milltown that became epicenters of invention and innovation. and we sparked the westward movement. we inspired an industrial revolution. and because of that, a great bit of manufacturing going on. i know we need to upgrade and retrofit and continually grow the economy by transforming some of the work force skill sets. i know that we invest in that. but to put us at a competitive disadvantage by having these situations where we don't require climate change response in the contract, we're allowing people to live in 1950's and 1960's standards with the environment, and we're doing our best to respond to climate change, we see this e-- we see the damage ravaging in of our communities, either through extreme try situation, drought in the southwest, or flooding in the southeast and in the neevet. these are issues that need to be addressed and we're doing the right thing. but when the left hand is not responding to what the right hand is doing and we're giving people a different level of standards, work force conditions, work force protection, these are things that need to be standard across the board and not sinking down to a low west common denominator but rising to the highest level amongst us. i think of the fact that we could end up with situations that have favored a labor scale a payment mechanism, such as 65 cents per hour for vietnamese workers, as being that standard out there across the world. nothing could be more harmful. that's undignified when it's seen through the lens of the worker. so there's a lot of work to be done here. there's a lot of improvement that needs to be had. we have opposed the t.p.p. in its current form and certainly we are for trade. it's important for us to have that marketplace, 4.7% of the world's population. of course we want to advance trade. it needs to be fair trade. and that is what we're asking here, this is the message we have been resonating so as to make certain that there is progress made here for our communities, our neighborhoods, our workers, our businesses, and we won't stop until we're successful with that. and i believe the message is probably, you know, not even dealing with this during a lame duck session of congress. so i appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts, i'll stay with you in this special order for a while, representative pocan, because this is a very important topic to workers from coast to coast and again, the fairness that we want to bring, not only to the work force but to the business community that invests in jobs in our neighborhoods. . mr. pocan: will the gentleman yield to a question? mr. tonko: absolutely. mr. pocan: this is my second term in congress. you've been here a little longer. one of the questions i have is when i was elected four years ago, i remember on new year's eevek, you were all voting during a lame duck session on things and tell me more about this lame duck session portion. i think that's the real question. some people might even be amenable to what's in the t.p.p., which we still have arguments about. but to do that in a lame duck session, certainly sets up problems. could you explain a little more about why that's a problem? mr. tonko: i think there needs to be, i think, strong dialogue here. and, you know, with the elections being early in november and probably some time to pass before we really gather base, d reconvene as a as a body, as a house, and then with hoiles, assuming some of the time during december, it gives you precious little time to really have that dialogue, that conversation, that is so essential. great things happen. when we communicate. when we talk to each other and suggest these are concerns, let's raise the given solutions that are indeed required to make it acceptable. that takes time. and quite literally there has been no work on this. people have been advancing the t.p.p. in its original, in its now given format. a lot of people see weaknesses, loopholes, concern for workers, situations where labor is not protected by union forces because the governments run the unions and, you know, if you're disa disdidn't to the cause, -- if you're dissident to the cause, there's extreme outcomes for individuals, if you become that whistleblower or that critic, that dissident, you're hen maybe finding yourself incarcerated. it's important for us to clear up a lot of the issues, to correct them, fine tune them. everything from environmental standards to worker protection, to the cost of pharmaceuticals. which has been raised many times over. and what it might do to the average price tag out there. not enough time. the rush -- to rush and get that done, to beat the clock, o to speak, i think is a faulty bit of a scenario. the not the way to do something. as so critically important as this is. mr. pocan: if the gentleman would yield to one other question. you mentioned there's a lot ofies -- areas that we clearly need to make changes on. there's areas of concern around labor rights and environmental rights and consumer protections and the isds provisions and other things. why not simply amend the trade agreement to fix those things? mr. tonko: you know, congress has very little opportunity to adjust. it's basically a thumbs up, thumbs down. we can recommend, it's not like we can make major adjustments. he administrator of the -- overseeing the document will have to take that back and make recommended changes. you have to bring other nations together to get agreement because it's 40% of the world's g.d.p. that is the audience for this given negotiated settlement. and this t.p.p. covers a huge portion of the world's g.d.p. there are a lot of partners at would have a say in the process. we can recommend and then, you know, the changes that we can inspire are quite mild compared to what needs to be done by the framers of the settlement. mr. pocan: again, thank you for all your work. mr. tonko: my pleasure. back at you. because the taken a lot of time for all of us who have been whipping in the house and i think to the credit of our group, we have sacrificed a lot of time. but we have been working in a steadfast way that has allowed people to really question how this fits into their given district. when this is done, it's got to be done correct he will because there's a long -- correctly because there's a long-term project. people have seen what faulty agreements can mean in their district. and while we lost many manufacturing jobs, luckily this administration has helped hold on to several manufacturing jobs and stopped the bleeding. now let's grow this and let's invest in the intellect for manufacturing. let's make it smarter and let's also retrofit our systems so that we do have a heavy hand in -- from a competitive edge and at the same time let's get the negotiated agreement that is most favorable to a level playing field. mr. pocan: again, thank you so much. i appreciate it. mr. tonko: my pleasure. mr. pocan: i think the point that the gentleman brought up, especially around why we can't amend it, is a really significant one. congress gave up its ability when it passed trade promotion authority to allow the president to do the final negotiations. we gave up our ability to have any amendments and we have limited debate. so when there are so many concerns for this trade agreement, unfortunately there's very little other than up or down vote that we can do. which is exactly why, when you have two major party presidential candidates, and scores of candidates for federal office across the country in both parties, opposing this agreement, to allow people who could be kicked out of office essentially by the voters, to make that decision in the lame duck is certainly undemocratic with a small d. and that's one of the real problems that we're facing on this. the other issue that you brought up, i want to talk about too, is the companies and job loss. other trade agreements we've had in the past, we've seen that we've had a net job loss, both i believe from the korean free trade agreement where we were made one promise and a different result happened, from 1/2 at it. i just last year had a -- from nafta. i just last year had a company leave lafayette county, wisconsin. lafayette county is one of the most rural counties in the state of wisconsin. the largest city is 2,400 people. darlington. it's one of two counties in the state of wisconsin that doesn't have a stop and go light. this is a rural, rural area. a company just last year, with about 32 jobs, that did auto parts, left to go to mexico. now, there is some trade adjustment assistance that can help on the short term to help the workers, but think about it. 32 jobs in a community of 2,400. also have a district in my district with 240 people. that's like losing 3,000-plus jobs in the city of madison, wisconsin. that's the effect that happened to that city, darlington. because of previous past trade deals. that's why it's so important we get it right and we get it right the first time. and in this case, i think there are many people in both parties who don't think we have it quite right. and that's why we need to address it. another thing i want to raise that we talked about and i think it's so important, because this is new news from this week. the provisions around the investor state dispute settlement. the provisions that allow essentially the multinational corporations to sue government, if they think something affects their future profits, just this week there is a group of academics who have traditionally embraced free trade, but are alarmed by the inclusion of the isds provisions in the deal. just sent a letter to congress warning of the system. 223 strong. led by harvard law professor, lawrence tribe, warned that the u.s. will be subject to a flurry of suits by profit-seeking actors with no interest in working through a democratic or constitutional process. let me read the quote in the letter. quote, unfortunately the final t.p.p. text simply replicates nearly word for word many of the problematic provisions from past agreements and indeed would vastly expand the u.s. government's potential liability under the isds system. this is about our sovereignty. mr. tonko: if you'll yield. doesn't this give corporations an opportunity to undo regulations that are established by our country or laws that are established? mr. pocan: the net effect by suing for financial gain will do exactly that. if someone's going to have to pay damages, you know, there's isds provision that happened in peru over an environmental law change. y a company that had toxic contamination. and that company is now, because of that change to law, environmental law in peru, is demandsing $800 million from the country. $800 million because they are saying that that somehow is going to affect their future profits, in violation of a trade agreement. these are real. this is just one of many, many examples, canada, other countries have been sued through these provisions. but now we have the experts in the united states telling us not to do that. this is something that clearly is one of the biggest problems that's in there and as we said, you can't amend it out. we're not allowed as congress, we gave up our ability to amend that section out. if i could yield time to the gentleman. mr. tonko: i think what you're pointing to here is a very important component of the agreement. we do lose the control, the direct authority, required of us by the constituency that places its trust in each and every representative that's elected to come to congress. they believe rightfully that we're going to have their best interests, we vote in accordance with what we hear from them about standards that should be maintained and established and implemented and o have that passed on to a port of whatever, of a format that is far removed from a given situation, and may be looking at just agreed as a factor, an unwillingness to pay abundantly well for what our standards that should be maintained, for just reasons, moves the process away from us with any control that we might have had taken away. i think that anonymity is a dangerous outcome of of a result of this sort of agreement. i think that, again, thrast lot of fine line -- there is a lot of fine print in the agreement that has to be really examined that oroughly reviewed so we're not putting our ituations at risk, our communities at risk, and all in all it's wanting to maintain standards that will respond to the needs of the environment, we know how critical that is, we know how much improvement is required and that we made great gains. but for those who signed into the process, some were actually directly communicating to the executive branch saying, let's get this fast track going. why would you circumvent to your role, why would you as a member of the house want to, you know, remove yourself from the process, when we should be here reviewing, examining, recommending and at least having some sort of input that won't pass it over and be a solve ourselves of give -- absolve ourselves of given responsibilities? i appreciate again you yielding, representative pocan. mr. pocan: thank you. as much as this is the progressive caucus special order hour and many of us are working against this i see republicans in the room. i know republicans are just as concerns about -- concerned about the sovereignty of this country. when you have the isds provisions that you have, you take away that sovereignty, so i don't care if you're a democrat or a republican, an independent, you want to make sure that if we have a legal system here, it's a legal system for everyone. there's not a special system set up for a few multinational corporations that know no one else can access with their -- that no one else can access with their own players ash traiting these decisions. that's the -- ash traiting these decisions. that's the -- ash -- ar by traiting these decisions. this is a day of action and 90 organizations have had calls coming in to congress throughout the day. tens of thousands of calls have come into washington, d.c., to ask people one, don't support t.p.p., but especially, don't support a vote on the trans-pacific partnership in a lame duck congress. don't let people who have just been rejected by the voters make a decision that could impact this country for decades in the future. don't allow a vote that's going to take away more american jobs and further depress our wages here. that's what people have been calling us all day about. and i think that's an important question for anyone who wants to serve in this body, is, are we going to give up those sorts of sovereignty issues, are we going to give up the very concerns we have around things like food safety and prescription drug prices, around labor standards and environmental standards, are we going to give all of that up through one giant trade deal that has 40% of the world's gross domestic product wrapped into it, and think that any agreement we have with canada, vietnam, are identical? i don't think anyone really believes that's in the best interests of america and that's why we had the special order tonight and that's why so many people called in today. we thank those people for watching and we hope that you'll get active on this issue as well, it's important that we have trade, but we need fair trade, not just free trade. and with that, madam speaker, i will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 20, 15, the chair recognized the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan if 30 minutes. mr. junior dan: mr. speaker, john koskinen should no longer hold office. john koskinen should no longer be commissioner of the internal revenue service. mr. jordan: tonight i'm joined by my colleagues to talk about why that should happen, why he should be removed from office. you remember what took place here, the internal revenue service targeted, targeted our fellow citizens for their political beliefs. they did it. and they got caught. and maybe most importantly tonight, thinking about the current commissioner, the targeting continues. you don't have toik -- you don't have to take my word for it. you can take what the united states federal court of the district of columbia stated. just last month, this decision om august, 2016, last month, from the opinion, the i.r.s. has admitted to the inspector general, to the district court, and to us, the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia that applications for exemption disome of the plaintiffs have never to this day been processed. they're still targeting conservative groups. they say it again right here. it's a -- it's absurd to suggest that the effect of the i.r.s.'s unlawful conduct which delayed the processing of plaintiff applications has been eradicated when two of the plaintiffs' applications remain pending. so here's the takeaway. they're still doing it. here's the standard. standard for removing someone from office. gross negligence. breach of public trust. dereliction of duty. mr. koskinen has certainly had those things take place under his tenure at the internal revenue service. here's the facts. november, excuse me, february, 2014, john koskinen's chief counsel is on notice that there are problems with lois lerner's hard drive and missing emails. they wait four months before they tell congress and therefore the american people. and during that four months, they learn in february, oh, we've got missing emails. problems with lois lerner's hard drive. they wait until june before they tell congress at the american people. during that four month time rame, 422 backup tapes are destroyed, most importantly, they are destroyed with three orders to preserve all documents and two subpoenas to get those documents are in place. think about that. government missing emails. the backup tapes that contain those missing emails are destroyed. in the four months you're trying to figure out, four months before you tell congress and those 422 backup tapes contain potentially 24,000 emails. that's why he should no longer hold office. that's why it's important that we take this vote at some point and remove him from office. you've got the standards, which he certainly meets on that fact pattern and the court just told us last month the targeting continues. the last thing i'll say before turning to my colleague, no private citizen could get away with that same scenario. any one of us, any one of the three quarters of a million people we all get to represent, any of those folks back in the fourth district of ohio whichive the privilege of serving, any one of those folks are audited by the i.r.s. and they discover that they're missing documents that are critical to that audit, critical to what the i.r.s. is looking for and they wait four months to tell the i.r.s. they're missing those documents and during that time, the backup tape that contains those missing documents somehow gets destroys? what's going to happen to them? they're definitely getting fined a prond -- and probably going to jail. somehow when it happens to john koskinen, the commissioner of the i.r.s., it's ok. it's not ok. it is not ok in this country. this is what frosts so many americans today. there are now two stan tards in this country. one for we the people and a different one for the politically connected. one for us regular folks and a different one if your name is lerner, koskinen or clinton. and that's not supposed to be how it works in this country. not the greatest nation ever, where we're all supposed to be treated equally under the law. with that, i yield to my good friend, the gentleman from -- siana, >> thank you so much for having this special order tonight. mr. fleming: my good friend, congressman jordan, has laid out the facts of this case and many other detailed facts that we don't have time to get into. but just to give you an example of what my constituents are saying to me, they are over the top angry at just what congressman junior dan was talking about and that is, there seems to be two standards in america. there's one standard for the elite. there's one standard for the high up officials in washington. and then there's a standard for everyone else. we see this played out all the time. but there is some very notable groups and people who support our effort to begin the impeachment of john koskinen, head of the i.r.s. i'll just give you some examples. the national review editorial board a weaponized i.r.s. put to partisan political ends constitutes an unbearable assault on american democracy and undermines the very institutions of government itself. end quote. "the wall street journal." their editorial board. quote, the u.s. attorney has refused to honor congress' contempt charge against ms. lerner for refusing to testify. the justice department has closed its investigation into the i.r.s. targeting without prosecutions. and the press corps winks at abuse of power when conservatives are the targets. that's precisely the point. it appears that the media, the liberal media, which most media is nationally, seems to be agreing with this. in fact, i've had a number of media outlets out there who asked me, why would you want to impeach the hofede the i.r.s.? what's wrong with him? and yet you heard how we learned that mr. koskinen deceived congress, refused to respond to subpoenas. destroyed or evidence it was destroyed in his tenure, either he did it or someone did it while under his authority. and then again, to see congress -- deceived congress about that as well. so it's very clear there's been wrongdoing and while mr. koskinen has come to the hill here to talk to members, he wants to do it it -- do it offline and without being sworn in. he's shown no interest in doing it under oath. the new york post editorial board, quote, if you responded to an i.r.s. audit the way koskinen's i.r.s. has behaved, you'd be looking at huge penalties and maybe prison time. george will, noted conservative, congress should impeach the i.r.s. commissioner or risk becoming obs lute. le -- obsolete. red state, why the impeachment of the i.r.s. commissioner is a sign that congress might actually work. you see, the american people have given up on congress. congress is the legislative branch which is a co-equal branch of government. it should be a check on the executive branch. and the judicial branch for that matter. and yet congress has shriveled up and atrophied so much, the american people have given up on congress ever doing anything about corruption at high levels of our government. and then americans for tax reform. why congress should impeach i.r.s. commissioner john koskinen. quote, since then, koskinen has failed toe are reform the i.r.s. with the agency becoming increasingly politicized. under koskinen, the agency destroyed several sources of lois lerner's emails while he gai numerous false statements to congress under oath, end quote. it's very clear, very notable eople, patriots, and people of stature, people who are well respected in america, agree with the house freedom caucus we should move forward. finally, before i yield, there's been polling on this matter. freedom works, for instance, has commissioned a poll and very clearly the american people say by as much as a 66% net positive other negative, that john koskinen should lose his job. so i think it's very clear and then beforer yield, i would just say that we're not sure what votes that we're going to have tomorrow on this subject but any vote short of impeachment of the i.r.s. commissioner one a vote against impeachment and would be a vote against showing mr. koskinen the door and getting someone who will do right by our leadership and the internal revenue service, a very important agency, one that has been so much abused, or actually victims, americans have been abused, through this institution. so i would be happy to yield ack to mr. jordan. mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman for bringing the motion forward to get this in front of the congress. i recognize the fine gentleman from the state of arizona, mr. gosar, for 1/2 minutes. mr. go sar: i thank the gentleman, mr. jordan. under the obama administration the i.r.s. has consistently proven it can't be trusted to serve the interests of the american people. unelected bureaucrats have weaponized the agency and used it as a tool to blatantly target innocent americans simply for having different political beliefs. rather than cleaning house and restoring the trust of the american people, the i.r.s. commissioner john koskinen has continued the pattern of criminal behavior and lawlessness within the i.r.s. con cost -- on koskinen's watch, 100,000 emails providing critical evidence were completely erased. koskinen failed to comply with a congressional subpoena, failed to testify truthfully in front of congress four different times while under oath and is now the ringleader for the coverup for the targeting of innocent americans by this rogue agency. our founding fathers specifically empowered the house of representatives with the authority to hold the executive branch in check. when it violates the trust of the american people. and more importantly, when it violates the law. the only way we can change the climate of corruption of washington, d.c. is to make an example of bureaucratic lawlessness and we can start right now. by removing john cost keky then from his job. just you watch. if the house of representatives takes action to fire john koskinen, i guarantee you that the rest of the obama administration and future administrations to come will get that message. it is beyond outrageous that not a single i.r.s. employee has been brought to justice for targeting innocent americans. the house has an obligation to pursue all constitutional options on the table to remove john koskinen, including impeachment. koskinen, and accountability, are within our reach and my colleagues and i will not yield in our efforts to hold this lawless agency accountable until we get it done. with that i yield back to the gentleman from ohio. mr. junior dan: i thank the gentleman. i recognize also from the state of arizona, mr. franks is recognized. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, commissioner john koskinen took over the internal revenue service in the wake of the i.r.s. conservative targeting scandal, ostensibly to reform the agency internally. instead he continued his predecessor's legacy of stone walling justice. after lois lerner, director of the i.r.s.'s tax exempt organizations unit, invoked the fifth amendment when she appears before congress, the committee on oversight and government reform issued a subpoena for i.r.s. documents including all of lois lerner's email. the i.r.s.'s chief technology officer also issued a preservation order instructing employees not to destroy any emails, backup tapes or anything relevant to the investigation. but mr. speaker, despite a congressional subpoena and a do not destroy order, the i.r.s. inspector general found that the agency had erased 4 2 backup tapes containing as many as 24,000 emails. all the while, commissioner koskinen, knowingly and deliberately kept congress in the dark. commissioner koskinen was clearly aware that the emails were lost but he knowingly and deliberately withheld that nchings from congress for four months and stone walled the entire investigation. mr. koskinen testified under oath four times before congress during that four month period saying he would turn over all of lerner's emails, making no mention of the fact that the bulk of them had been, quote, ost. mr. koskinen swore under oath that the bulk of the backup tapes was unrecoverable. the inspector germ found 700 of those emails had not been erased and were recoverable. john koskinen then failed to protect citizens against the same type of future discrimination. a report found no significant measures had been implemented under mr. koskinen's watch to make sure that civil servants in the i.r.s. don't unlawfully target americans based on religious or political views. this entire matter is counter that everything a republic like ours is meant to be. and we are fundamentally predicated on the rule of law and there are very few things that break faith with the american people or undermines their trust in their government more than witnessing those that witness the sacred flexibility and according to the law using the federal government power of the federal government to destroy and oppress american citizens based on their religious or political views. such an abuse of power and betrayal of their sworn oath of the united states constitution by john koskinen and barack obama will loom at large because it goes to the heart of the rule of law at this republic and so many lying out in arlington national cemetery died to preserve. the united states congress has a duty to impeach commissioner john koskinen. the impeachment powers is a political check that alexander hamilton wrote in 1788 protects the public against abuse or violation of public trust and commissioner john koskinen appointed by barack obama has violated public trust. a taxpayer would never get away an i.r.s. add it the way the officials have treated this investigation and the congress of the united states owes it to the american people, to future generations and sworn oath to hold the perpetrators accountable and make sure that this never happens again. i yield back. mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman. and for his hard work. i recognize mr. huelskamp. mr. huelskamp: thank you, mr. speaker, it's a pleasure to be here tonight and tomorrow, this house will have a chance to redeem itself a bit or at least remain relevant for now. hopefully we will be voting on something of great consequence for a change. tomorrow we will be asked to for or against removing the i.r.s. commissioner. make no mistake, this is not just a vote to remove one man from office but a vote against the rule of law itself, it is a vote for or against maintaining our system of interm checks and balances. it will be a vote against for or against a public official and transparency in our government. for months, myself and other house freedom caucus members have been pushing for this accountability. those who might oppose this measure might defend the i.r.s. in fact, they are defending a toxic statue tuesday "in which agency may useul its power to thwart its enemies. one branch of government and then uses the resources of that branch of government to depress all other branches of our government. this is something we would expect to see in an emerging democracy, not the greatest republic in the history of man. let's look at how this came about, during president obama's re-election campaign, they looked at nonprofit status, nonprofit status from hundreds of conservative organizations in some cases. many of those organizations were never able to recover from this denial. others were effectively neutralized for the duration of the 2012 election. this is a matter of fact and not of opinion. eventually the discriminatory ractice was exposed and mrs. lerner was removed but remained er full pension. john koskinen was then appointed and he would act in the best interest of all of us and never abuse its power. after she refused to testify before congress, the i.r.s. mentioned that some of her emails had gone missing in order to preserve them. in fact, found out later the i.r.s. erased 422 backup tapes araising 420,000 emails. if one email was one single page, that would be eight feet worth of erased emails. and when the commissioner told congress under oath that many emails had been accidentally destroyed, he was lying. and when the commissioner told congress under oath that his agency would provide vestigators with all of mrs. lerner's emails he was lying. when he said they would comply with foia requests and assist investigation to the practice of unfairly targeting organizations for their first amendment beliefs, he was lying. when he and his boss told the american people under the public trust that he would reform the i.r.s. and make it more transparent and less hostile, faith organizations and small businesses, he was not telling the truth. the commissioner blatantly lied under oath because he thought he could get away with it just like so many other administration officials. the commissioner pleeved he was above the law and beyond approach. tomorrow we have the chance to prove mr. koskinen's assumptions are wrong. these articles of impeachment represent the negative consequences that the average american would face if he lied under oath. some have called this effort petty, even some who believe more officials more deserving of removal, perhaps they are right. we have someone whose violations of the law cannot be disputed and i would hope in light of the indisputeable evidence could move beyond the division and encourage my fellow members to vote for accountability, vote for the rule of law and vote for a government that is checking of its own power. i thank you, leadership, congressman from ohio, and a true friend. this is a very serious issue and not a political issue, but an issue of principal and rule of law and i yield back. mr. jordan: i now recognize the gentleman from arizona, a third gentleman from arizona, mr. chweikert. mr. schweikert: thank you, congressman jordan. and mr. speaker, i actually wanted to touch on something that is a little bit different. look, we have all seen the documents and heard the documents this evening on the bad acts. now i want to walk you through why we must do this. and i understand for a lot of our brothers and sisters in this body, this is uncomfortable. this is something that hasn't been done in a very long time. let me walk through sort of a line of logic, because you can't be a member of congress and go home and do town halls and talk to reporters and say i'm going to defend the constitution and defend our article 1 authority and then not stand up and defend it. so let's do a linear line of logic here. if tomorrow, one of you became a c.e.o., 15 years ago, this body passed sarbanes oxley that said if you are in the leadership and someone commits bad acts in your organization, you accept the responsibility because you accepted that position of leadership. these are the things that we require from the real world outside this body. anyone here ever been a real estate broker, had a securities license, if bad acts happen underneath your license, what happens? you lost your license. you were removed from that position. but somehow these rules, this concept of responsibility that this very body has put out on he rest of this country, the rest of the private sector, is ot willing or is uncomfortable in demanding the very same status of responsibility, the very same status of ethics that we require from a real estate broker, to corporate executives, but we aren't going to require it from the head of one of the most powerful democracies in this nation? and this is to all my brothers and sisters in the body, i accept it is uncomfortable doing something you have not done before. that does not mean it isn't the right thing to do. you've heard the argument made. the facts are crisp and clear. now it's time to make that decision, are you willing to defend the article 1 position that this body holds in the constitution? are you willing to defend the constitution? are you willing to let our representation to the american people continue to be trampled on by this administration? mr. jordan, thank you for let ming me have a the mic. mr. jordan: i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. mr. perry: thank you for the leadership. ladies and gentlemen, mr. speaker, what we are talking about, heard all the facts and i don't want to belabor them, protective orders and subpoenas and a preservation from his own agency, the commissioner disregarded that and did what he wanted to do in contravention to what any of us would do. two standards of justice. lois lerner for or hillary clinton. one for them and one for all the rest of us, one for all the people out there in the real world. my business, when we got a letter from the i.r.s., provide something from four years ago, we would go to the accountant and said we submitted this stuff. well, you have to save your records for seven years. when you see something from the i.r.s., your heart stops. lois' heart t -- stopped? you go to the judge without talking to the police and say, we don't need to involve the police. that's what happened here folks. two standards of justice. one for all of us working people out there and one for the connected. mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen, the facts are very clear. it is our duty, our requirement under the constitution to provide justice. and mr. koskinen will have his day, his day in court. his due justice. he will have his day but the people who have been agriefed by this agency will have their justice and it has been denied. i call for the actions we are talking about. and i yield back. mr. jordan: right on target. i recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson. mr. davidson: thank you for the opportunity to address this body , mr. jordan, mr. chairman. it's an honor to be here tonight but a sad time to be talking about on this topic. as the newest guy here i'm thinking about a lot of things. those who are thinking about this at home, this i.r.s. scandal has been going on since 2010, the first evidence of targeting. six years, a lot of people say why are you guys looking into this. why has it taken so long to look into it? congress has looked into it since 2013 and been here for a long time. and what we see here is a frustration with the system that in our own body is having a hard time working. we would like to see this go through the judiciary committee and go through a different standard process, but that process has continued to stall, delay and not happen. and i think we owe it to people that september us here to do what we said we would do which is to support and defend this constitution. if we can have people come and give inaccurate testimony. if we can have subpoenas ignored. if we can have evidence destroyed, then as george will wrote, we are at risk of being completely irrelevant. and this is the dilemma. this isn't js the i.r.s. that has done this, but this is the email scandal from the state department. and i remember the shock of the cnn anchor saying the blackberries are destroyed. these things are going on. i serve on the science committee where orders to report data breaches have occurred over and over. and inaccurate testimony is given. subpoenas are being ignored by attorneys germ for evidence involving cases they are taking that are intended to stifle scientific research. when congress is acting, the word is on the street. you can ignore these requests and don't have to respond to subpoenas. you can destroy evidence and always give inaccurate testimony. nothing is going to happen. it's time we do take action and consider a course that keeps our i.r.s. commissioner accountable and sets an example that when congress takes action, it should e taken seriously. mr. jordan spks the gentleman's time has -- mr. jordan: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, we're facing an extremely important decision right now to if and -- examine and way the decisions of an individual and determine whether or not we're going to hold that individual accountable. mr. hice: when john koskinen entered the public arena, he became accountable to the public. that's what we're now facing. here's an individual, mr. speaker, who routinely showed disrespect and contempt for this institution, who lied before our committees, who did not give us the evidence we needed to fulfill the investigations we destroyed and evidence on a massive scale. we must hold him accountable for this. here's an institution, the i.r.s., that has the power to destroy lives and to ruin businesses and we know for a fact that even just a couple of weeks ago, the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit determined that the i.r.s. has been targeting conservatives and conservative organizations on multiple fronts and they cannot confirm that that has ceased at all and so i just -- we cannot let him get out of this with just a whimper. it's time for this house to do its job and hold him accountable. i thank the gentleman from ohio for holding this special order and i hope my colleagues will join in the impeachment proceed offings john koskinen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expyred. does the gentleman from ohio have a motion? mr. jordan: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until >> the resolution that is coming up was filed by two house republicans, john fleming and tim jules can. members of the conservative house freedom caucus. they have been frustrated by the allegations against the irs and by the failure of what they allege is the failure of the commissioner to comply with congressional subpoenas, provide testimony and otherwise restore trust and agency. they have been frustrated by the fact that the chairman of the relevant committees, the judiciary committee chairman has not moved forward with the impeachment proceedings. they have filed this privileged resolution that short-circuits the process. >> one of your current articles has the headline, impeachment showdown begins as house conservatives take aim at irs commissioner. is it possible this is a showdown with the administration and house republican leadership? >> that is the case. i don't think this is a fight that speaker ryan or other members of the house republican leadership are particularly relishing at this point. i think that there are conservatives who are very upset with the irs and not only the of they handled the scrutiny conservative political groups, but also the way they handled congressional inquiries into it. widespreadre is skepticism over whether remedyment is the right to what is going on. no one has been vocal about saying that this is a bad idea. , theave heard bigger ryan majority leader kevin mccarthy say that they want this process to adhere to regular order which is code word for saying that the relevant committee should take action rather than short-circuiting that process. >> the house republicans congress is getting ready for a special meeting, which expected happen. >> a classic conversation. they get together behind closed doors and mr. fleming and it feels cap and a like-minded members are going to be able to -- itheir case for doing expect we will hear from probably chairman goodlatte and probably some other folks. speaker right is expected to be in the room. -- ryan is expected to be in order. they're going to make their cases in terms of what is the best way forward. we will see later in the day how that shakes out. commissioner has made a couple of visits to capitol hill meeting with members. what has he been saying that his defense? >> he has spoken to some of his moist -- most pointed critics. he went to the republican study committee. his message has been that even if you think i have been terrible things and deserve to lose my job, you should follow the usual impeachment process and you should not be engaging in this short-circuiting of the process. the judiciary committee should have formal impeachment hearings. i should be given an opportunity to formally present a defense. i should be granted due process. then it should be up to the judiciary committee to vote for the articles of impeachment and send them to the poor and at the house is bit, send those impeachment articles to the senate for a trial. that is not the process we are doing right now. >> is the only option and impeachment? are there other methods of discipline? >> yes. there has been some discussion of a censure. in fact, the oversight and government reform committee passed a censure resolution to the committee earlier this year. before.ot come to -- to the floor. that is an option if leadership feels the conference is coalescing behind. there are other options as well. to discuss the boat we're going to have tomorrow, there are a number of ways that that could be disposed of short of voting it down or voting it up. it could be, perhaps likely a motion to send it back to the judiciary committee. other words, say we are going to follow the regular process and if the committee determines impeachment is more to come we will continue. there can also be a motion to table which would kill this effort. >> another ingredient in the bubbling cauldron of issues to get done before september 30. what can you tell us in terms of onupdate on where we are government funding measure to take us past september 30? >> thinks -- not a lot of things have changed outwardly. harry reid, the democratic leader said there are still multiple issues to be resolved. the with difficult issues is whether funds in the zika package are going to go to an affiliate of parenthood and prayer to -- in puerto rico. if it is prolonged, there could , at quick resolution if least in the senate, if these negotiators find some common ground. clearnate is going to water resources development bill has mader mcconnell every indication he wants to go quickly to the cr funding package. >> read his report and get washington post.com. he is on twitter at might the bonus -- mike debonis. >> thank you. >> tonight, house democrats begun compiling prevented. in a memorial service for hawaii content mark takai. later, a meeting of the house rules committee for proposed changes for the next congress. houston cut spoke about gun violence and called for votes on related bills. this is 35 minutes. minutes. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, there's a public health emergency in our country . you're thinking of zika, you're thinking of opioids. yes, they are public health emergencies. there is another long-term public health emergency and that is gun violence. i thank the chair of our task force, mr. thompson, mr. larson for organizing it, the great icon john lewis for galvanizing all of the concern in the congress around this issue. david cicilline, of course, our distinguished congresswoman we just heard from, ms. clark. judy chu. so many members have taken the elizabeth s issue as esty before she was sworn in in congress addressing the concerns in newtown. 91 people lose their lives to gun violence every day. that is not a statistic. that is an outrage. it is a challenge to the conscience of our nation to end congress' appalling inaction to gun violence prevention -- on gun violence prevention. across america, communities are standing up, speaking out and lighting the way. a preventable public health crisis is taking the lives of our children, our neighbors and our friends. you would think when the lives of little children in school were taken that that would be the end of it, that would end the discussion and that any common ground that we could nd to expand, expand the background checks which is not a big thing, really, in terms of just including internet sales and gun shows, just expanding what we have. not a big legislative move but making a tremendous difference in saving lives in our country. this congress must hear the voices of those calling for action to keep guns out of the wrong hands. and i want to just talk about some of the voices i recently heard when i was in florida a couple of weeks ago. i went to orlando, visited pulse, the site -- the name of the nightclub where the gun violence there took place. there was gun violence and it was a hate crime. a deadly combination. and when i met with the families and some of the survivors there to hear their concerns about hate crimes and n violence, they really to a person said to me, please, do something to stop gun violence. as consumed as they were to the fact this was a hate crime, the gun violence issue was what each one of them spoke about. that they had lost their loved ones -- these are young people out on a saturday night. one mom who went there to take her son there and see his friends and the rest and make sure he was safe, the mom died, the son survived. any mom would prefer that outcome, but why does that have to be the choice? here they are. if you're in kindergarten or in a movie theater, if you're in church praying as was referenced by our colleagues about south carolina, that was a hate crime too. awful statements made by the perpetrator of that crime when he exploited the hospitality that was extended to him to pray together. and for him to make his hateful remarks, racist remarks and then do violence on the people who had welcomed them to pray with them. so where is it that people are safe? what can we do to make a difference? well, for one thing, if you're too dangerous to fly, then you should be too dangerous to buy a gun. 80% to 90% of the american people subscribe to that. that shouldn't be controversial in the congress. we're supposed to be representatives representing the will of the people, and where there is consent -- we have enough disagreement -- but where there is consensus and a public health emergency and loss of life, even to little children, people in church, young people out on the town, , ople going to the movies what is it that our colleagues don't understand? it also depends -- in addition to keeping hands -- guns out of the hands of those who are too dangerous to fly, our nation depends on keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. again, just simply expanding to gun shows and internet sales. . husband republicans wouldn't even -- won't even give the american people a vote. just a vote. what are you afraid of? are you afraid that the american people will be done and we'll have a successful vote? no fly, no buy. strengthening our background check system. so we're going to be leaving soon before we were ready -- going to leave for the summer under the leadership of our distinguished leader, whom we all consider a privilege to call colleague, john lewis, sit-in on the floor of this house, and that reverberated across the country. reverberated across the country. then we left. ongress shut down and we left. we're about to do so again but we have a little time. we have a little time to save lives. what more important thing does any of us have to do than to stay here and pass a law to save lives? somebody said to you, you could save 90 lives by passing a bill today, wouldn't you do that? or why wouldn't you do that? why wouldn't you do that? it's really quite a sad thing when people -- when they go to the movies, as my colleague mr. israel points out, when you go to the movies they are concerned about are they going to be able to get their popcorn and whatever in time to get a seat in the theater. now they want to know where the nearest exit is when they go to the theater. what's that about? what's that about? some people say it's about politics and it's just too politically dangerous for some of our colleagues to vote for the simple expansion of the background check legislation and passing no fly, no buy. it's politically dangerous to them. whose political survival is more important than the lives of these children? of those people in church? those young people out on a saturday night? who is -- whose political survival is more important protecting the american people? that's the oath we take. whether it's constitution, protecting our contry, national security, our neighborhood security, our personal security. so let's honor our oath of office. let us honor our sense of responsibility. let us respond to though moms and family members and survivors from pulse who said why? why are you not passing legislation in the house of representatives to prevent gun violence to save lives? to save lives. in any case i think it's really important and i thank mr. larson for bringing us together. we're not going away. this will be -- go on and go on and go on until we disarm hate. we're here to save lives. here and across the country. we're not going to stop until we enact gun violence prevention laws. we're not going to stop until we get the job done. again i thank our leaders on this important issue. mr. thompson, thank you for your leadership for years now on the subject. again hopefully it won't be too long before our colleagues see the light and decide that their political survival is not more important than the survival prayers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the illinois, ms. kelly, for five minutes. ms. kelly: mr. speaker, i rise today disappointed by the lack of leadership on display in this house. gun violence is a terror in many of our communities and we must stop it. in 2016 we have had more than 10,000 preventable gun deaths in america. consider this. this past labor day the city i reserve the balance of my time, chicago, saw it's 500th homicide of the year. we have seen 3,000 people alone shot in 2016. 3,000 shot, 500 dead, 90 murdered in august alone in one city. too often we write gun violence off as an urban condition, but the gun deaths we're facing aren't only urban. it's everywhere and impacts us all. kids died in newtown. people murdered on live tv in roanoke. massacred in orlando. gun violence has altered the lives of speaker ryan's constituents in oakland creek, wisconsin. ykia a ed fatal for n mother of four in chicago who was walking back from registered her children for school. it turned family movie night into a horrific final act for 12 people in aurora, colorado. gun violence turned a finance night out into a final terrifying moment for 49 people orlando and left indelible, emotional wounds in the hearts of more than 50 others who suffered injury. mr. speaker, what will you do before this year ends to prevent even more unnecessary and preventable gun violence? what are you and your caucus going to do to change the fact that american children are four times more likely to be killed by a gun than canadian children. seven times more likely than israeli children. and 65 times more likely than british children. there is no room for your deafening silence. there is no justification for your gavel to drown out the cries of families being terrorized bay gun violence. -- terrorized by gun violence. it is said that the blood brother of apathy is the inability to prioritize that which is important. mr. speaker, your a pa think is america's agony. our constituents elected us to work together to solve our nation's biggest problems. if gun violence is not monumental, then what is? right now anyone can buy a gun online or at a gun show without a background check. why does that make sense? we have a gaping hole in our system that must be closed. some states and newnies palities already have -- municipalities already have strong gun laws. many others do not preventing laws from truly having their fullest impact. this is the case in illinois. i represent communities plagued by gun violence. despite chicago and illinois having strong gun laws, our neighbors have very weak gun laws a criminal, domestic abuser, a terrorist, or a he person who is dangerously, mentally unstable, cannot get a gun in illinois but they can jump in their car, drive to a gun show in a bordering state like wisconsin, to buy a gun, and buy back to commit a horrible and preventable crime. in a four-year period from 2010 to 2014, 10,000 crime guns recovered in illinois were from other states. nearly 1,000 of the guns killing my fellow illinois residents came from the speaker's home state of wisconsin. wisconsin's lax gun laws are tied to 10% of illinois guns. this demonstrates what is all too obvious to 90% of the american public, it is the duty of congress to pass comprehensive background checks to ensure no matter where a dangerous person lives or travels, they cannot access a firearm. if you're too dangerous to buy a gun in illinois, you're too dangerous to buy a gun in wisconsin. 40% of gun sales are online or at gun shows where a background check is not required. what if four out of every 10 people at an airport, or right here in the capital, didn't have to go through security? would we enjoy the same level of safety as we do? requiring a comprehensive background check is a simple measure. it's embarrassing we're not even having this discussion. this isn't about taking away our constitutional right to bear arms. law-abiding citizens who aren't dangerous and can pass a back grouped check will still have access to their firearms for hunting, self-defense, and personal legal use. so if you're not a danger to yourself or others, if undergoing a background check in order to maintain and buy a gun really is that much of a big burden, second amendment rights like all other rights guaranteed by our constitution have logical limits. keep guns out of the hands of the terrorists killing our children off our playgrounds and streets and away from people who are killing police officers like the one we just heard about. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. kelly: who has to get shot and how many have to die bef yi the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, for five minutes. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i rise in support of all americans whose lives and communities have been affected by gun violence and to highlight the gun violence prevention day of action. after the tragic 2014 mass shooting in my congressional district on the central coast of california, our community declared that not one more life should be lost to gun violence. yet, today i stand before this chamber with heavy heart to mourn the many individuals who've been killed by a gun since that tragedy and that number is staggering. in fact, over 2,000 men, women and children have lost their lives to gun violence since the start of the congressional recess in july. that is 2,000 people in just 60 days right here in our country. our country is better than this. house republicans' decision to dismiss the house for seven weeks without so much debating gun violence legislation is shameful. going home to our districts without addressing life and death issues is not what the american people expect of us, and they deserve better. but here we are back in d.c. with democrats ready to work together to move commonsense gun safety measures. we just need a partner. we cannot ignore these problems because they are hard. we cannot stand by hoping the problem of gun violence will go away by itself. we continue to shirk our duties as representatives while those we represent are dying. there are commonsense regulations for congress to debate. the american people overwhelmingly support closing loopholes in the background check system for firearm sales. democrats, republicans, gun owners, even members of the n.r.a. support background checks, but the republican leadership will not debate expanded background checks. the american people also support closing gun sale loopholes which lets dangerous individuals gain access to weapons without any review. democratic and republican lawmakers have introduced bills that would close gun sale loopholes, but the republican leadership will not allow the house to debate closing these dangerous loopholes. and the american people support the no-fly, no-buy bill which would prevent terror suspects, terror suspects from the f.b.i. watch list from purchasing weapons. this is the very least we can do but, again, our house leadership, republican leadership will not bring no-fly, no-buy, even for debate. but not allowing these kinds of votes or even these important debates, house leaders are failing the american people. if we don't try, nothing will change. our communities are hurting. they demand action. it is time to answer that call. mr. speaker, whether or not you support this legislation, the american people demand that you do your job and hold a vote on the commonsense gun legislation they overwhelmingly support. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i was proud to join our nation's great civil rights leader john lewis and so many of our outstanding colleagues that have spoken out on the issue of gun violence when we had our historic sit-in in the house in june. our request then and our request today are the same. and i think it's really rather simple. we're asking to be allowed to vote on two commonsense bills to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. a universal background check bill that will close loopholes and no-fly, no-buy legislation to prevent people who are on the f.b.i.'s terrorism watch list from buying guns. imagine, the f.b.i. has them on a watch list but they can still buy guns. both proposals have overwhelming support of the american people, and they have bipartisan support in congress. background checks are supported by nine out of 10 americans, and they've been proven to be successful. keeping guns out of the wrong hands. every day background checks stop 170 felons, 50 domestic abusers and 20 fugitives from buying guns. where these loopholes have been closed in states such as connecticut, the numbers have dropped dramatically. today, under current law up to 40% of gun sales are completed with no background checks whatsoever. in our great country, no background checks whatsoever. people can buy guns online the way you can go out and buy m&m's. meanwhile, the most commonplaces where the american people go -- to church, to school, to movie theaters -- they're under siege. and this congress -- you know what this congress has done for anyone that's listening in? we've had 31 moments of silence. mr. speaker, sympathy is not enough. in fact, it comes off as being hypocritical. as sincere as people have been when they bow their heads for less than a minute, it is not enough. we have an epidemic in our country, and we can do something about it. we have bipartisan legislation. now, meanwhile, bills have been brought to the floor without one co-sponsor, but mr. king and mr. thompson's legislation, co-sponsors. 186 now, why can't we vote on this? why? i think that there's a complicity with the n.r.a. with awful these deaths around the country, the violence that's taken place of innocent people, children, young people, adults and then all of the aftermath of grieving and the families that have lost someone, they have a mark on their soul. they will grieve the rest of their lives. so we are asking for a vote. if you don't agree with me, vote no. but mr. speaker, we have a responsibility and i think a high moral responsibility to address this. we are asking that these bills, two bills, be brought to the floor. law enforcement supports these bills. the american people support these bills. mr. speaker, i think it's about time that these bills be brought to the floor. we can save american lives. imagine that. by adopting these two bills, we can save american lives. i now would like to yield the remainder of my time to someone ho has been a leader on this issue, congresswoman elizabeth sty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california will remain at the well. the gentlelady from california needs to remain at the well. the gentlelady is now recognized. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we need a vote. what will it take? what will it take for this house, the people's house, to finally vote on commonsense, bipartisan legislation to save american lives? since the murder of 20 schoolchildren and six educators in one of my communities in newtown, connecticut, thee years and nine months ago we have not had one single debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from -- the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. capuano, for five minutes. mr. capuano: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield my time to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will stay at the well. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delauro: we're here again today because the american people are demanding action. they are begging us to stop the killing, and i urge my republican colleagues, listen to your constituents, do your job, pursue commonsense gun violence legislation. we need to vote on legislation that makes a real impact on the epidemic of gun violence in this country and we need to vote now. the american people want us to do our job. they want bipartisan legislation, and we have a moral obligation to take action. . for each of us it is personal. every community, the effects of gun violence have left scars that will never heal. in my home state of connecticut cannow how devastating this be. after the tragedy at sandy hook elementary, we lost six incredible caring adults. 20 beautiful children. we said never again. can be. after the since sandy hook, 39,000 or more people have been killed by a gun. there have been over 1,200 mass shootings in movie theaters, churches, nightclubs, and safe havens. 31 moments of silence on the floor of the house in honor of these brother, sister, children, and babies. yet we have held zero vote on bipartisan gun violence prevention legislation. let's move to a real no fly, no buy bill. one that actually prevents potential terrorists from getting dangerous weapons. we need to address the issue of universal background checks. the gun lobby would have you believe that background checks are a wedge issue. it's a lie. 92% of gun owners support background checks. 72% of n.r.a. members support background checks. the victims' families do not get a break from their grief so we will not take a break until we get a bill. real bill, with concrete and enforceable measures that will stop the killing. the american people deserve real concrete gun legislation. how many more people must suffer and die before we open our eyes? i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. peier, for five minutes. ms. speier: mr. speaker, you probably haven't heard of tamia sanders. this young woman here who is 14 years old, she was killed while sitting on her porch next to her mother on august 12 in jacksonville. you probably didn't hear that she was an honor student, or that she had a beautiful smile. there were no moments of silence for her on the house floor because she was just another little black girl killed by street violence. you probably haven't heard about willow. she's 2 years old. she and her mother, her 8-year-old sister, and her 6-year-old brother were killed. willow was just 2 years old when her father killed her along with the rest of the family on august 6. in sinking springs, pennsylvania. and you probably haven't heard that willow had survived a heart transplant when she was six days old. and her mother fought hard to make sure willow had enough medication. willow didn't get a moment of silence on the house floor, either, because she was just another child killed by someone that was supposed to love her. you definitely didn't hear about the two people found dead in the house in meade valley, california, on august 5. no one published their names or ages or whether anyone noticed they were dead. the same can be said for an unidentified woman killed in the streets in los angeles on august 8, two unidentified men killed in a parking lot on august 13 in milwaukee, and two unidentified women killed on the streets on august 28 in st. louis. they certainly didn't get a moment of silence on the house floor because they were just more anonymous victims of gun violence. there have been 322 mass shootings this year. more shootings than there are days in the year so far. 416 people gunned down. 1,161 people who have been injured. and yet we only tell their stories if the killing is particularly large like the pulse nightclub, or particularly terrifying and political like the san bernardino terrorist attacks. daily mass shootings have somehow become commom place. -- commonplace. they are victims, nameless, mourned only by those who knew them. but i say this is a national tragedy. and we should all mourn. we should grieve for antonio hinkle who was 32 when weighs killed at a yookout on august 27 in alabama. he died pushing children out of the way of gunfire and left behind three children of his own. and we should grieve for isiah, 15, and safari west, 22, who were killed when someone opened fire on a vigil for another dead teenager on august 27 in miami, florida. and we should grieve for shannon, 35, her boyfriend, joseph, her brother, robert, and their relatives justin, and chelsea, who were killed in their sleep by a friend's boyfriend on august 20th in sit tra nell, alabama. they were sheltering their friend who had fled the abusive relation shfment chelsea was five months pregnant when she and the others were gunned down. these are the people who don't make the national news. the girl walking to her neighborhood convenience store, the boy playing in the front lawn, the woman trying to leave an abusive relationship, the grandfather sitting on his porch. they were robbed of life because this congress refuses to act. colleagues, we must honor them by speaking out. now is the time for a vote. let's lift the ban on research on gun violence. let's expand background checks to all gun purchases. let's close loopholes that let known and suspected terrorists buy guns. let's commit resources to make smart guns that are less dangerous to children who find them. a little girl was killed while sitting on her porch. right next to her mother. say her name. tamiya sanders. honor her memory with more than a moment of silence. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis, for five minutes. i rise : mr. speaker, yet again to speak out about mass shootings and gun violence in our nation. en i think of newtown or charleston, orlando my heart just breaks. mr. speaker, for what it takes for congress to act, how many more must suffer? ow many more must die? how many more little children must die? how many more mothers and of ars will mourn the loss child? today, mr. speaker, i ask you to think of a beautiful young woman celebrating a girls weekend in atlanta but was killed by gang crossfire. please think of the young woman killed while driving home from work in southwest atlanta. think of the woman fighting for her life at this very moment in grady hospital in downtown atlanta. just last week she was injured a shooting that brought interstate i-85 to a stop. mr. speaker, time and time again we ask for compassion. time and time again we ask for action. time and time again we ask for leadership. our people are sick and tired of the do nothing congress. hey elected us to do our jobs. instead, mr. speaker, we take a break. mr. speaker, republicans must join with democrats and do what is right, what is just, what is air, and what is long overdue. they are good commonsense proposals that not only protect rights but also save lives. these bills should be passed, bring them to the floor, let us have a vote. give us a vote. time is of the essence. we cannot be silent and we will not be silent. we cannot wait for another time, another place, another person. mr. speaker, the time is now for us to act. today i urge all of my colleagues to join us. be brave, be bold. take a stand for what is good and necessary. if you prefer, please take a seat. roll up your sleeves. let's go to work. the time for silence is or.

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Louisiana , United States , Alabama , Arlington , Texas , China , Interstate , Georgia , California , San Bernardino , Connecticut , Mexico , Arizona , Kenosha , Wisconsin , South Carolina , Massachusetts , El Salvador , Los Angeles , Chicago , Illinois , Singapore , Miami , Florida , New York , Canada , Malaysia , Japan , Atlanta , Washington , Lafayette County , Jordan , United Kingdom , Puerto Rico , Milltown , Israel , Colorado , Pennsylvania , Houston , Sandy Hook , Peru , Ohio , Orlando , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , Berlin , Germany , Hawaii , Americans , America , Canadian , Mexican , Vietnamese , British , Israeli , American , Erie Canal , Antonio Hinkle , Elizabeth Esty , Lois Lerner , Harry Reid , John Koskinen , Kevin Mccarthy , Barack Obama , John Lewis , Tim Jules , David Cicilline , Judy Chu , John Fleming , Hillary Clinton , Alexander Hamilton , Sarbanes Oxley , Mike Honda ,