including china. and to top it all off, in order to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country, we have to increase taxes for the middle class. in order to pay for that. if you make over $250,000 a year -- over $1 million a year, make over $1 million a year the republican tax propose will give you a tax cut of $160,000 on average and on average america's middle income families would have to pay $1,000 more in taxes . you know, we work for the american people, you are our bosses. so as our bosses, what would you instruct us to do? when it comes to reducing deficit, giving a tax cut to 100% of the american people, which will inject demand into

the economy and therefore create jobs, so we're reducing the deficit, we're creating jobs, we're having fairness as a principle of how we go forward. make no mistake, by refusing to vote for the senate-passed bill, house republicans are giving more tax breaks to the richest 2%, tax breaks they don't need, and we can't afford. at the same time as they cut taxes for the rich, as i said, they are -- would raise an average of $1,000 on 25 million american families, families who rely on the money for day to day d needs -- day to day needs to pay the bills. that isn't fair and democrats will fight to prevent these tax increases on middle income families in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in our country. today is a day we can end

uncertainty. people talk about the cliff, how we're going to go over the cliff on january. let's not even go anywhere near the edge of that clism let's pass this bill today. it will save about -- well, just under $1 trillion, because they're not giving those tax cuts to the high end. that's almost all the money that is needed to avoid the sequestration come january. so again, again, we are addressing the uncertainty, not only in the lives of the american people but in the live -- life of our economy. or today is the day that republicans will continue to hold the middle class hostage to tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country. i urge my colleagues to join mr. levin, join the president of the united states, join all of us, there isn't a person in this room, in this body, i

think, who doesn't support tax cuts for the middle class. why can't we just do that? do what we can agree upon, right now, tax cut by the weekend, alleviating uncertainty for our economy as we go forward, and then we can have a debate about what a tax code should look like that has fairness, simplification and again, keeps us competitive, innovative, and number one, allowing the private sector to create jobs again, jobs, jobs, jobs. we're going to reduce that deficit by having additional revenue, by creating growth, by addressing spending so we're investing in the -- those initiatives that deprow our economy. pretty soon when we end this debate it will be around the time america's families will sit down to dinner at the

kitchen table or wherever and they'll have these discussions about how they pay the bills. the bills to stay in their home or their apartment, wherever, how they're going to pay for their children's education, how their pensions are affected by all of this, the list goes on and on. with one vote, we can alleviate that uncertainty. we're not going to eliminate it but we can lessen it. we have that responsibility. let's not miss the opportunity. and miss an opportunity to address that. i thank you, mr. levin, for your leadership, and the members of the committee for all of yours, and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. levin: there are a few

unrefuted facts. small business, 97% of small businesses who receive -- will receive all of their tax cut. don't listen to the propaganda to the contrary. everyone will receive their tax cuts up to $250,000. -- up to $250,000 of income. don't listen to propaganda that says otherwise. income over $1 million, for those who have that, would receive under the republican bill 70 times more than the typical family and when the two bills are combined, 150 times more than the typical family. 150. let me say just a word about tax reform, which i favor. it's being used as an argument

for inaction but look, let's be realistic. no matter who controls the congress next year, there won't be tax reform until maybe the spring or the summer. so are you going to use that same argument for tax reform, say, in a lame duck, against middle income tax cuts? or in january, are you going to use the same argument? going to use tax reform as a shield to protect the high income taxpayer? you know, the republican bill is a path to nowhere. for middle income taxpayers. our substitute is a sure path. pass it. the senate already has. the president will sign it.

act now, vote for the substitute. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four and three quarters minutes. mr. camp: thank you very much, mr. speaker. as i travel around michigan in my district, the fourth congressional district of michigan, i hear from many families that they think america is at a crose roads. they really question, is the american dream is that dream that their children and grandchildren are going to have the opportunities that they had, is that dream still alive for their kids and grandkids? and the reason they ask that is because we've been on the economic path that the majority has established for the last three years. and we've seen the slowest

recovery from any recession since the great depression. unemployment is still too high. maybe being from michigan i'm particularly sensitive to that because we've had tough times for more than a decade. we need to get people back to work. we need to get jobs going in this country. there's really a choice. which path are we going to be on? which lane are we going to be in? are we going to be in the lane where we simply raise taxes? whether what segment it is, i don't care, name the segment, but one we know will cost us 700,000 jobs? or will we go down the path where we extend current law for one year, as many bipartisan experts have called for. even president clinton has called for it. the president's former economic advisor said let's extend current law for a year, let's take the uncertainty out. in the 20 hearings we've had in the ways and means committee, so many employers, so many tax expert, so many independent groups have come forward and

said, the uncertainty of all this expiring tax policy is causing a huge problem. my friends would say we're only going to raise taxes on small businesses and others that make $250,000, that will solve our problems. it won't. that's just a piece of it. the code is so complex. 5,000 changes over the last decade. i often say it's 10 times larger than the bible with none of the good news. the burden this is place thoke economy, it's a huge wet blanket, our g.d.p. growth is barely over 1%. the gross domestic product. our economy is not growing enough. and if we don't grow our economy, we can't creecree ate the jobs that we need, that are so desperate. let's work together, let's pass this one-year extension. tomorrow we have a package that will lay out our principles for comprehensive tax reform. that will also lay out a process to expedite this next year in the house and senate.

we've been working with the senate to establish these procedures. they will go through regular committee in an open and transparent way, not just roll a bill let on the -- a bill out on the floor and say if we just ding that, it'll be ok. this is the greatest country in the world. let's make this the greatest economic power in the world. let's reform our tax code for the first time in 26 years. let's make it a pro-growth, modern code that lets our u.s. companies compete around the world. lower rates, make it simpler for people to file their taxes. lessen that burden, lessen that uncertainty and create a million jobs in the first year alone. it's very clear which path we feed to choose. reject this substitute, support h.r. 8, get on the right path, get on the path to job creation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill.

the clerk: senate 1959, an act to acquire a report on the designation of the hakani network as a foreign terrorist organization and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. levin: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman request the yeas and nays? those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having raisin, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 170rk the nays are 255.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 170, the nays are 257, the amendment is not adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the

gentleman opposed to the bill. mr. defazio: yes, i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. defazio of oregon moves to recommit the bill h r. 8. mr. defazio: i ask that the motion be considered read. >> i object. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read. the clerk: mr. defazio has a motion to recommit, adding at the end of the bill the fol logue, findings, one, section 206 this act, h.r. 8 that extends millionaires for millionaires instead of helping small businesses with tax -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the house will be in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: to invest in the

future and create jobs. two, small businesses would be better served by ending tax breaks for millionaires and instead using that revenue to expand the small business expensing provision which fosters investment in new plants and equipment. three, this act, h.r. 8, fails to extend expansions to the child tax rhettened -- credit and the earned income tax credit and it fails to extend altogether the american opportunity tax credit. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the clerk will read. the clerk: tax relief encourages work, has lifted millions of americans into the middle class and helps middle class families pay for the cost of higher education.

section 7, application of extension of 2001 and 2003 tax relief to certain high income taxpayers, a, application of extension of 2001 tax relief, one, treatment of 25-28-and 33% rate brackets. paragraph 2 of section 1-i of the internal revenue code of is amended to read as follows, quote, 25 dash, 28 dash and 33% brackets. tables a, b, c and d shall be applied, by substituting 25% for 33%. b by substituting 28% for 31% each place it appears. and three substituting 33% for

36% each place it appears. subsection i is reamended by redesignating paragraph three as paragraph four and inserting after prar 2 the following new paragraph, 35% rate bracket, in general, in the case of taxable years beginning after december 31, 2012, i, the rate of tax under subsections a, b, c, and d on a taxpayer's taxable income in the highest tax bracket shall be 35% to the extent such income does not exceed an amount equal to the excess of one the applicable amount over two the dollar amount at which such bracket begins and ii, the 39.6% rate of tax under such subsections shall apply only to the taxpayers' taxable income in such bracket in excess of the amount to which clause i applies. b, applicable amount. for purposes of this paragraph,

the term applicable amount means the excess of i, the applicable threshold over ii, the sum of the following amounts in effect for the taxable year. one, the basic standards deduction within the meaning of section 63-c-2 and two, the exemption am within the meeping of section 151-d-1 or in the case of subsection a, two, such exems amounts, c, applicable threshold, for purposes of this paragraph the term applicable threshold means, i, $1 million in the case of subsection a, b, and crmbing, and ii, half the amount after adjustment if any under subparagraph e in the case of subsection d. d, highest rate bracket. for purposes of the paragraph, the term highest rate bracket means the bracket which would determine without regard to this paragraph be the 39.6%

rate bracket. e, inflation adjustment. for purposes of this paragraph with respect to taxable years beginning in calendar years after 2012, the dollar amount in some paragraph c-i shall be adjusted in the same manner as under paragraph 1-c, except that subsection f-3-b shall be applied by substituting 2008 for 1992. three, overall limitation on itemized deductions, section 68 of such code as amended, a, by strike striking the applicable amount the first place it appears in subsection a and inserting the applicable threshold in effect under section 1-i-3, b, by striking the applicable amount in subsection a-1 and inserting such applicable threshold. c by striking subsection b and redesignating subsections c, d, and e, as subsections b, c, and

d. four, for personal exemptions, a in general, paragraph three of subsection d is amended, i, by striking the threshold amount in subparagraphs a and bmbing and inserting the applicable threshold in effect under section 1-i-3, ii, by striking subparagraph c and redesignating subparagraph d as subparagraph c and iii by striking subparagraphs e and f. b conforming agreements, paragraph four of section 151-d as amended, i, by striking subsection b, ii, by striking subparagraph -- and by indenting such subparagraphs as sores. re-designated accordingly and iii by striking all that precedes in the

calendar year after 1989 and inserting the following, four, inflation adjustment in the case of any taxable year beginning, b, apply case of extension of 2003 tax relief. 1, 20% capital gains rate for certain high income individuals. paragraph 1 of section 1-h of the internal revenue code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph c, by redesignating subparagraphs d and e as subparagraphs e and f and by inserting after subparagraph b the following new subparagraphs. c, 15% of the lesser of, i, some of the ajusted net capital gain or at less taxable income as exceeds the amount on which a tax is determined under subparagraph b or, ii, the excess -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. the clerk will suspend. >> i ask unanimous consent that further reading be suspended.

the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? seeing no objection, the reading is dispensed with. under the rule, the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. deaf -- the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. this is the final amendment to the bill. it won't kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill would be immediately amended and proceed to final passage. it's a pretty simple amendment. now, it would create a tax break for the real job creators in america which are small businesses and middle income families. a middle income person with a job or a small business and enough money to go out and invest and buy products made in

america, that's a key component of this, for their business would be allowed an expensing -- mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. defazio: the republican version of the bill would limit expensing to small businesses, to $100,000 a year for purchases of new equipment made in america. if this amendment is adopted, those same small businesses would be allowed to expense up to $1 million to purchase products made in america which would put people back to work. now, i know we're going to hear that the millionaires and billionaires -- because this tax increase or restoration of the clinton era rates would only apply to income over $1 million, so a millionaire still gets the

break on the first $1 million. it's only on income over $1 million we go to the clin -- clintonarya rate. they say, they're the job create source that would suppress job creation. let's think back to the clinton administration. we had a 39.6% top bracket on the millionaires and billionaires. we had 3.8% unemployment in the united states of america and we paid down debt for the first time since the eisenhower administration. i'd like to go back to those bad old days. now we've been doing tax cuts, the bush tax cuts for 12 years, where are the jobs? where are the jobs from cutting taxes on people's income over $1 million? they aren't creating those jobs. let me give you two quick examples from my district and they're typical. i have palow alto software, small business, they make software for business startups. we contacted them and they said, yes, we could invest way more

both in new hardware, new software and other things that would enhance our business that $100,000, if we were giving this expensing privilege and we would put more people back to work. or bulk handling systems. they make recycling systems in my district. same answer. if you gave us $1 million of expensing, we would spend every penny of that on products made in america and put people back to work. so the bottom line is, the republicans want to limit these small businesses, these real job creators, to $100,000 deduction, when they could use a $1 million expensing and put more people back to work. because they're premise is that the millionaire, the person who got, you know, hundreds of millions or more in income, that having them pay more taxes on their income over $1 million will create more jobs than the small business. i don't buy that. i don't think the american people buy that. what -- there's no limit on what

they can do with their huge tax breaks. their very expensive tax breaks. they can buy another vacation home in the caribbean, they can buy a car. paris hilton can goen to a -- on a shopping spree in london or paris. this bill limits the expensing and the purchase of equipment to products made in the united states of america. i want to see things made in this country again. i want to put americans back to work, not people overseas, and it's time that we admitted that we can't afford to continue the tax cuts over $1 million of income. it would also reduce the deficit over 10 years by $29 billion after we create jobs, after we give this expensing privilege to small businesses. so the choice is yours. you can stick with those who have income over $1 million or you can side with small businesses and american workers. you decide. the speaker pro tempore: the

time of the gentleman from oregon has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition to the motion. kmpmp -- mr. camp: i rise in opposition. it's clear that my friends on the other side are committed to raising taxes at any cost. and does anyone believe that they're going to use that to reduce the deficit? we'll just see more wasteful washington spending. this isn't a solution. america's at a crossroad. we had 40 months of 8 purse unemployment. what do we get from them? not a solution. we get a political employ. and i appreciate my friend from oregon touting the benefits of the clinton administration when we had a republican congress. but let me just say, i want the advice of former president clinton. he said, extend all of the

current tax rates. extend them all. but let me just say, this would gut tax reform. say yes to tax reform, say no to raising taxes, say no to this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from michigan has expired. all time has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. defazio: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. those favoring a recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. purr -- pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 0, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 8 if ordered, the motion to suspend with regard to house

resolution 750 and h.r. 4365. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 181,

the nays are 246, the motion is not adopt the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. levin: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan asks for a recorded vote. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 256, the nays are 171, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 750 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 750, resolution providing for the concurrent to h.r. 1905 with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 421, the nays are six. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4365 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4365, a bill to amend title 5, united states code, to make clear that accounts in 2015 saving fund are set to certain federal tax levees. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the

united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 414, the nays are six. and one is recorded as present. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and pass s. 3 hub as amended -- s. 300 as amended. the clerk: an act to prevent abuse of government charge cards. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. though owes pod -- those opposed, no. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to re-- the motion to reer consider is laid on the table.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 4073 as amended which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 434, h.r. 4073, a bill to authorize the secretary of agriculture to accept the quit claim disclaimer and reling wishment of a railroad right of way within the adjacent national forest in el paso county, colorado, originally granted to the park and incline railroad company, pursuant to the act of march 3, 1875. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: frump does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass house concurrent resolution 127, expressing the sense of congress regarding actions to preserve and advance the multistake holder governance model under which the internet has thrive. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. -- title. the clerk: house calendar 112- 143, concurrent resolution expressing the sense of congress regarding actions to preserve and advance the multistake holder governance

model under which the internet has thrived. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the celt from oregon, mr. walden, and the gentlewoman, ms. eshoo, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the secret from oregon. mr. walden: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, revise and extend their remarks and insert extrains you materials into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. walden: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: i rise today in support of house concurrent resolution 127, a resolution that opposes international regulation of the internet. it was introduced by mrs. bono mack in may and passed the house committee on nrnl and commerce with bipartisan support from more than 60 members, including chairman upton, ranking member waxman mitigating circumstance colleague on the communications and technology subcommittee, ranking member eshoo, and i,

too, am pleased to be an original sponsor of this important resolution. nations across the globe will meet in december for the international conference on telecommunications in dubai. they're the -- there the 193 member countries will consider whether to apply to the internet a regulatory regime that the telecommunication union create for old-fashioned telephone service as well as whether to swallow the internet's nongovernmental organization structure whole and make it part of the united nations. neither of these are acceptable outcomes. now among those that are supportive of such regulation is russian president vladimir putin, who spoke positively of of the to idea of quote, establishing control over the internet, close quote. some country have -- some countries have profodse regulations that would allow

them to read emails for commurt. but if it isn't broken, we shouldn't be trying to fix it. the internet is the greatest vehicle for global progress and improvement since the printing press and despite the current economic climate, the internet continues to grow at an astonishing pace. cisco estimates that by 2016, roughly 45% of the world's population will be internet users, there'll be more than 18.9 billion kecks and the average speed of mobile broad wand will be four times faster than today. the ability of the internet to grow at this staggering pace is due largely to the flexibility of the multistake holder approach that governs the internet today. nongovernmental institutions manage the internet's core functions with input from private and public sector participants. this structure prevents governmental or nongovernmental actors from controlling the design of the network or the content it carries. without one entity in control,

the internet has become a driver of jobs and information, business expansion, investment and innovation. moving away fra that multistake holder model would harm these abilities. it would prevent the internet from spreading prosperity and freedom. in may, the subcommittee on scommune cases and technology invited a pam of witnesses including federal communications commissioner robert mcdowell to discuss the effects and international regulatory -- an international regulatory regime would have on the internet. all agreed such a regime would not only endanger the internet but engage global development on a much larger scale. house concurrent resolution 127 expresses the commitment of congress to do all it can to keep the internet free from an international regulatory regime. i'm pleased to report thatialier today, ambassador cramer, the leader of the u.s. delegation to the group outlined the position of the

united states that seems to be on course with this resolution. my hope is the administration stays on this course. as the dell nation continues to work in advance of the wicket, house con curn resolution 127 is an excellent, bipartisan demonstration of our nation's commitment to preserve the multistake holder governance model and to keep the internet free from international regulation. the house committee on internet and commerce strongly supports house concurrent resolution 127 and i urge the rest of think colleagues in the house to join us. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to myself, or what time i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to join with all of my colleagues. this is an unusual happening on the floor and i hope there are lots of people tuned in from c-span listening and watching.

because it is one of the few times that we've come together in a true, bipartisan, 100% bipartisan, way and i want to pay tribute to the gentlewoman from california, representative bono macfor her leadership on this and bono mac for her leadership on this and i'm pleased to join her and all the members of the energy and commerce committee on h.con.res. 127. as i said, this is bipartisan and it's bicamerale -- bicameral and demonstrates the bipartisan commitment of the congress to preserve the open structure and multistake holder approach that's been -- that has guided the internet over the past two decades. the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee said he hopes the squad mrgs will remain on -- hopes the administration willry main -- remain on this. the administration was there before the congress took action. there is no light between the administration, the executive

branch, the senate, or the house. that's the way it should be. through this open and transparent structure, mr. speaker, the internet has literally transformed into a platform supporting thousands of innovative companies, aply cages and services, not just in the united states, but in communities around the world. i'm very, very proud because my congressional district is very much a part of silicon valley and many of these companies help to launch these innovations. in fact, since 1995, this is really stunning, venture capital funds have invested approximately $250 billion, with a b, dollars in industries relinet on an open internet, including $91.8 billion on software alone. but late they are year, the world conference on international

telecommunications, at the committee, we call it wcit, will propose a departure from regulations adopted in 1998. nearly 25 years ago this trooty provided a framework for how telecommunications traffic is handled along countries but much has changed since that time. in addition to proposing new regulations on broadband services, several nations, including russia, are set on asserting intergovernmental control over the internet, leading to a balkanized internet where censorship could welcome the -- could become the new norm. while there's no question that nations have to work together to address challenges to the internet's growth and security such as online privacy and intellectual property protection, these issues can best be addressed under the existing model.

it's absolutely essential that the united states defend the current model of internet governance at the upcoming dubai conference this december. because the very fabric of the free and open internet is at stake. so i urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution which reflects, as i said, a few moments ago, a viewpoint already shared by the obama administration, the federal communications commission and the u.s. delegation to the wcit and unite in opposition to proposals that threaten the innovation, openness, and transparency enjoyed by internet users around the world. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oregon. >> i thank the chairman and i'm now honored to have the sponsor of this legislation, the chairman of the commerce, manufacturing, trade subcommittee, the energy and commerce committee, and a very active and feggetive member of

the subcommittee i chaired, communications and technology subcommittee, mary bono mack from california, who has put a lot of time into making sure the internet remains free and open and this is her resolution. we thank her for her work and i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mack: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank -- mr. mack: mack thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my dear colleague for yielding me the time. mrs. bono mack: in the future, how many of these stories will you actually be able to read if russian president vladimir putin and china's communist party are allowed to exert unprecedented control over internet governance? here are two words you should google. good luck. as the united states prepares to take part in the world conference on international telecommunications in dubai, we need to provide the delegation with a clear and unmistaken mandate. keep the internet free of any

and all government control. at the wcit discussions, a new treaty on internet governance will be debated. most worriesome to me are earths to provide the u.n. with new authority over the management of the internet. that's bad enough. but unlike the u.n. security council, the u.s. will not have veto power to prevent censorship or actions which could threaten freedom everywhere. to prevent this from happening, i introduced house concurrent resolution 127. i wanted to thank my co-sponsors, energy and commerce committee chairman upton, ranking member waxman, communications and technology subcommittee chairman walden, and my good friend and the ranking subcommittee member eshoo for their strong bipartisan support in this earth. i also want to commebbed senator rubio for championing this cause in the senate. in many ways this is the first of its kind referendum on the future of the internet. for nearly a decade the united nations has been angling to

become the epicenter of internet governance. a vote for our resolution is a vote to keep the internet free from government control and to prevent russia, china, india and other nations from succeeding -- from succeeding in giving the u.n. unprecedented control over web content and infrastructure. last year e commerce topped $2 billion in the u.s. for the first time and is up 15% in this year. we continue to create millions of jobs and bolstering our economy at a time when we really need it. these proposed treaty changes, which have been going on in secret, could have a devastating impact worldwide on both freedom and economic prosperity. if this power grab is successful, i'm concerned that the next arab spring will become a russian winter where free speech is chilled not encouraged and the internet becomes a wasteland of unfulfilled hopes, dreams and opportunities. we cannot let this happen. i urge my colleagues to vote yes for this resolution and say no to online censorship by foreign

governments. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, a highly regarded member of our committee, mr. doyle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to add my support for this important resolution, to safeguard the internet from government control. i'd like to thank my friend and colleague, mary bono mack, and my other colleagues from the energy and commerce committee for introducing this measure and i was delighted to become an original co-sponsor. this bipartisan resolution sends a clear message to the united nations. it tells the international telecommunication union, the u.n.'s arm handling telecommunications issues, not to adopt regulations that would make it easier for governments to exercise tracking, surveillance or censorship

online. the internet has developed into a revolutionary medium as it is today because decisions over the structure of the internet have been made by nongovernmental expert organizations. these groups invite participation of a number of stakeholders from academia to the private sector, public interests and other experts and they've done a good job of avoiding a lot of the political interference. you know, at a time when some governments have actively been blocking users from accessing certain websites online, i'm glad to see my colleagues unite against such repressive actions and in support of internet freedom. opposition to internet censorship has always been a very bipartisan issue. i want to make that clear. because sometimes this issue gets confused with other policy issues like net neutrality and some of my colleagues have argued that net neutrality supporters somehow favor internet censorship. i believe that users should be able to surf the internet however they want to, without

being blocked from certain websites or services and that is what net neutrality is all about as well. so i think opposing censorship and favoring net neutrality go hand in hand. mr. speaker, i'm glad to see this resolution move forward in a bipartisan fashion. i urge my colleagues to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: i thank the chairman and now would like to extend three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, a member of the judiciary committee, cho chairs the intellectual -- who chairs the intellectual property and competition on the internet subcommittee, has been one of our terrific leaders on the republican side of the internet and keeping it free and open, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you. i'd like to thank chairman walden for his great work in this area and his leadership on this issue and i rise to strongly support house concurrent resolution 127.

several hostile countries continue to pursue a u.n. takeover of the internet through an organization known as the international telecommunications union or i.t.u. an agency within the united nations. in fact, a push is being made to negotiate international control of the internet in dubai this december. the u.n. is the absolute last entity that should have anything to do with managing the functioning of the internet. currently the private nonprofit icam, internet corporation for assigned names and numbers, performs this function. while ican is far from perfect, having this responsibility rests with a private entity, helps foster market principles and is the most efficient way to administer the internet's domain name system and route servers. we must remain vigilant against efforts by foreign governments to consolidate control of the internet into a u.n.-centered body which would lead to free speech and access restrictions

and abuses. house concurrent resolution 127 will show congress' unity behind this concept and i strongly urge my colleagues to support this important resolution and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i now would like to yield three minutes to mr. markey, the gentleman from massachusetts, a recognized intellectual leader on telecommunications and the ines mr. markey: i thank the gentlelady. i thank the gentlelady for her great leadership. i have served 36 years on the telecommunications subcommittee. no member of congress has ever done this. and i know that this is an important moment. this is an important resolution. because the internet today is indispensable to our economy. intricately linked to innovation

worldwide. initiates the free flow of ideas around the planet. it is the most successful communications and commercial medium in the history of the world. in testimony before the telecommunications subcommittee in may, a man known to many as the father of the internet explained, to allow any rules that would sequester this innovation and inhibit others would damage the future of the internet dramatically. i could not agree more. that is why i strongly support this bipartisan resolution with ms. eshoo, mr. waxman, mr. walden, mrs. bono mack. this is why we have to be out here together. it is why we must send a bipartisan signal to the rest of the world, the united states will defend an open internet.

the worldwide web is essential to our economy. companies large and small rely on the web, regardless of whether their commercial aspirations are local or global. the internet's worldwide scope has also helped to foster community and cultural communications across the planet. we have recently witnessed the power of social media in toppling dictators and promoting democracy across the demrobe. and what makes the internet so special is this decentralized open system that currently governs it. it is chaotic, it is impossible to control and the multistakeholder process that is in place today ensures the internet's vie brantley will continue into the future. here dome city -- vibrancy will continue into the future. we have to make sure the broad barons don't close down this can could haveny of voices that are heard and stifle innovation. but globally, yes, a number of

countries including china and russia are now proposing measures that strike at the core of what makes the internet great. their proposals could stifle innovation, cripple job growth, muzzle democratic principles. these proposed measures include bringing the internet under intergovernmental control. an impose -- and imposing fees for relaying internet traffic or termination rates for delivering internet traffic to its end destination. we have to resist and reject these regressive ideas. it would undermine the essence of the internet. it would take us back to the days where in the satellite world it is the controlling governmental officials and countries that actually decided what ideas could go into that country. and paid -- made people pay exorbitant rates in order to get access to those ideas. the internet, this packet switch system that was invented in the united states, it breaks down those barriers. we must unsure -- ensure that we

keep internet freedom. thank you all for bringing this great resolution out here to this floor this evening. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i now would like to yield time to my distinguished colleague from california, representative lofgren, who is respected in the house for her knowledge, not only of technology but all the wrap-around issues that are a part of it and i yield three minutes to representative lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. lofgren: thank you, representative eshoo. and thank you to all who have brought this important bipartisan resolution forward. i remember as the internet was beginning to take off

commercially and we had a discussion here in the government and again it was bipartisan. and an understanding that the commerce department was not going to be able to run the internet. and we did something that was a risk but it worked out pretty well. we created icann and basically allowed a multistakeholder, nongovernmental organization to do the technology, to assign the names and numbers, and they've not been perfect, but not half bad. what is before us today is the threat to the internet that as my colleague, mr. markey, has said has been the greatest force in modern times for communications, for growth, for low barrier entry into innovation. we are aware that there are those around the world who wish

to burn the internet, whether it's to tax it or to sensor it for political or cultural reasons and we need to take a stand in this body and with our administration to say no to that. you know, i weathered the attempts to control the internet from the top down, comes from an international body like the international telecommunications union or from international trade agreements and treaties, and there have been many threats to the internet that have been included in our international treaties. or even sometimes from our own government. we need to stand up and protect the internet and the freedoms that it embodies. we know that the multistakeholder approach is critical to the continued robust

growth of the internet and we also know that the transparent multistakeholder model has made the internet such a hugely successful global platform for economic growth, human rights and the free flow of information. i am proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say that america, america is going to stand up for freedom, we're going to stand up for technology and we are not going to allow those, whatever their intentions may be, to threaten the freedom of the internet to succeed. i appreciate mrs. bono's efforts in this regard, along with ms. eshoo's and the entire committee, i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the measure. i look forward to its resounding success in a vote tomorrow and i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: i would continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. . ms. eshoo: how much time do we have left? the speaker pro tempore: eight minutes. ms. eshoo: i don't have anyone else here to speak on this. mr. walden: i'm in the same situation. ms. eshoo: i think that everyone who has spoken has spoken beautifully about this issue. and what the internet represents not only to individuals, businesses, students, how it has changed, how we live, how we work, how we learn, and the jobs that it has produced, what it has done for our national economy, but also what it has done relative to exporting democracy. and so of course the united

states is front and center in this. it's a very interesting thing to me to examine those countries that are thinking another way. and want to impose that thinking on the internet. they are far more closed societies, where freedom of thought, freedom of expression, is not valued the way we do and other democracies do. and so we need to form partnerships with other countries around the world to make sure that the democratizing effect that the internet actually holds will continue. i'm proud to join with, again, with my colleagues, with mr. walden, the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, and representative bono mac who

-- bono mack, who led this. i want to thank our staff on the majority and minority side of the aisle for the work they do at the committee. i thank you all, i salute you and i look forward to a unanimous vote of the united states house of representatives in support of a free and open internet and with that, i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognize. mr. walden: mr. chairman, i recognize myself for such time as i may consume. tonight, the u.s. house of representatives will send a clear and distinct message not only to our negotiator bus to the world that we stand for lib ity, we stand for freedom. when it comes to the internet, both of those are incredibly important. internet has brought us economic prosperity, not here alone, but all over the globe.

the internet has allowed for political discourse never imagined by the great scholars of greece and rome. it's brought us intellectual capabilities. think about what you can do on the internet today, to research something, to evaluate something, the unlimited number of sources of data. it's improved our lives. it's improved our lives through our political systems, it's allowed people who thought they had no opportunity to affect change to have an overwhelming effect by communicating together, so this really is a vote for liberty, it's a vote for freedom, a vote for free speech, a vote for the things our founders believed in when they gave us the constitution and the bill of rights. it is -- it's our version of that. we know that there are forces out there in the world that are opposed to all those things because they want command and

control of their people and that's not right. so we have an opportunity tonight to send a clear and convincing message that we stand in america for freedom of the internet, for no government anywhere on the globe taking charge of it, shutting it down and denying that great human spirit. that we believe in so much here in america. mr. speaker, i ask my colleague it is join us in a unanimous show of support. i thank my staff and the staff of representative eshoo and the ranking member waxman for their good work on this and especially to my colleague from california, mary bono mack who raised this with us early on and worked to write a piece of legislation in an otherwise controversial house has brought us all together. that's a tribute to her work. with that, mr. speaker, i call on my colleagues to support this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the house concurrent resolution 127? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the aaffirmative. mr. walden: i ask for a record vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4273, the environmental liability conference act of 20 12. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek to call up the bill as ameppeded? the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 425, h.r. 4273, a bill to clarify that compliance with an emergency order under section 202-c of the federal power act may not be considered a violation of any federal, state, or local environmental law or regulation. and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman call up the bill as amended? >> i do. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. olson and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from texas. mr. olson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their rashes and insert extraneous materials into the record on h.r. 4273. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. olson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olson: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 4273, resolving liability conflicts act of 2012. my colleagues and i carefully drafted this bill to resolve a con nict between the federal power act and environmental laws and regulations that if left unresolved could create serious problems for liability in our nation's electric grid. every year, as the heat of summer settles in across our country and demand surnls for electricity, the potential for dangerous power outages grows. some states such as california

and my home state of texas, are being warned by electricity regulators that reserve margins could dip dangerously low. texas is expecting a 2 50rks0 mega watt shortfall, equivalent to five large power plants, as early as 2014. the shortfall could cause rolling blackouts across texas that have potential to impact more than 25 million people. we've seen this before in our country. we've watched it unfold in india this week. the loss of power can result in significant harm to human health and the environment. prior experience shows that rare and limited circumstances emergency actions are needed to ensure we have reliable delivery of electricity. in these circumstances, the

department of energy has a tool of last resort to address the emergency. that tool is issued under section 202-c of the federal power act. d.o.d. can order a power plant to generate electricity when outages occur due to weather events, equipment fail -- failures and when supplies are low and could cause a blackout. they can force a company to comply with 202-c, an order, even if it means a typical violation of environmental law. unfortunately, under current law, an individual can be held liable for this type of violation even when acting under a federal order to avoid a blackout. the reason is these conflicting federal laws have -- in recent career, these laws have rulled in lawsuits with people who are complying with orders. one company had to pay a significant sum after they were

ordered to exceed their emissions limit to avoid a blackout. unless congress passes legislation to avoid the conflict of laws, the effectiveness of this tool is in jeopardy. as testimony this year before the house nrnl and commerce committee con fisms, the next time they evoke 202-c, the power yen rator may choose to fight the order in court if it conflicts with environmental law. conflicting federal laws put a power general reator in a no-win situation. 're cede to environmental laws or be sued for compliance with the early orders. h r. 3270 proside a needed safety valve which clarifies that compliance with an emergency order under section 202-c of the federal power act may not be considered a violation of any federal, state, or local environmental laws.

these are not issued lightly. in the last 30 years, this authority has only been used six times. but, my legislation will assure that they work to minimize any environmental impacts, and must balance environmental interests with reliability needs. while i believe they may need to use its emergency authority more often in the future, given the train on the power rules on the grid, i still expect the mortgage authority -- emergency authority orders to be the exception not the rule. in those rare ince stances -- instances when the authorities is invoked, we shouldn't punish generators following orders from the federal government. that's why we must amend the federal power act so generators are not forced to choose between compliance with an emergency order and

environmental regulations. this is why this bipartisan legislation allows america's power generating companies to maintain grid reliability in a power emergency without facing lawsuits or penalties. i'm extremely pleased with the bipartisan support this bill has received. this is proof that we can find common ground when working to address a critical lapse in federal law and provide energy supply to americans. i thank chairman upton and ranking member waxman and subcommittee chairman richter and ranking member bobby rush for their support and assistance in moving this bill forward. i also thank my colleagues on the committee, gene green and mike doyle, for working with me to fix the problem to keep power running for all americans in an emergency. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan legislation that protects energy consumers, the environment and those who use the power. i reserve the plans of my time

tosh those who provide the power. reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> the bill before us today is the result of efforts from both sides of the aisle to find a solution that really works for industry, government, and our environment. currently, the department of energy has the authority to issue a must-run order, to a power provider in emergency cases to protect grid reliability. mr. doyle: at the same time, environmental laws and regulations could prohibit a company from complying with the d.o.e. must-run order. so a company is left in the position of choosing which law it violates, environmental rules or an emergency order from the department of energy. in fact, mr. speaker, this has happened in the past. during the california energy crisis, and as recently as 2005 in virginia, a company was issued emergency orders by the

department of energy. to comply with those orders, they were temporarily in noncompliance with environmental law. therefore, after complying with an energy must-run order, the company was both fined and forced to settle a citizen lawsuit. if it happens once, twice, or 50 times, it will never be proper for the federal government to put a company in the position of choosing which law to violate. . are the california reserve margin will be extremely tight. so this bill will fix a clear conflict in federal laws with

the narrow targeted approach. this bill will ensure that the department of energy will have the ability to keep the lights on while still protecting the environment. the bill before us simply clarifies that if an emergency order issued to section 202-c of the federal power act may result in such a conflict with an environmental law or regulation, it shall expire not later than 90 days after issuance. this is to ensure that d.o.e. has the necessary authority to keep the lights on in true emergencies. it then gives d.o.e. the opportunity to renew or reissue such an order for an additional 0-day period after consulting with -- 90-day period after consulting with the appropriate agencies and to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. d.o.e. may exclude a recommended condition if they

think it would prevent it from adequately acessing the emergency. mr. speaker, this bill is the result of many months of work with members on both sides of the energy and commerce committee. it is supported by both the chairman and the ranking member of the committee. and i ask my colleagues to support it also. i want to thank mr. olson. it's been a pleasure to work with him on this piece of legislation. i ask my colleagues they support this legislation and, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. olson: i thank my colleague from pennsylvania for his kind words. mr. speaker, at this time i see no colleagues on my side of the aisle to speak and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. it's a pleasure for me to now yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas, a valuable member of our energy and commerce committee, mr. gene green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is

recognized. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker, and i'd like to thank both my colleague from pennsylvania and also my neighbor in texas, congressman olson, for making sure we get this bill to the floor today. i rise in strong support of h.r. 4273, the resolving environmental and grid reliability conflicts act of 2012. this bipartisan legislation addressing the long-standing conflict in federal law where a company or individual can be held libel for violating -- liable for violating law to avoid black outs. it gives the department of energy to order an elect trick generating facility to operate an emergency. at the same time environmental laws and regulations may restrict the operation of power plants or transmission lines. so if a company or a publicly owned utility is ordered by the d.o.e. to operate under section 202-c at the same time is prohibited from operating in accordance with the d.o.e.

order due to environmental limitations, the operator must choose which legal mandate to follow. these conflicting legal mandates should not complicate an electric reliability crisis. as a longtime member of the energy and commerce committee and one that worked on environmental reliability during that time, it was not our intention to put electric facilities to choose between one law over the other. while there have only been a couple instances where to date a generator has been in this situation, the potential for conflict can only -- scheduled coal fire plants will be taken off-line in the coming years. and we have potential reliability issues in my state and mr. olson's home state of texas. even though we are under a separate grid, it's important we have this distinction corrected. that's why congress needs to address this issue right here, right now or else we risk will

hurt our electric reliability. if an emergency order issued pursuant to section 2020--e, the order shall expire no later than 90 days after issuance. this is to ensure d.o.e. continues to have necessary authority to keep the lights on in true emergencies. however, it then goes to the d.o.e. the opportunity to renew or reissue that order for an additional 90-day period only after consulting with the appropriate federal agency including conditions submitted by the agencies to mitigate the adverse environmental impact. mr. speaker, this is not a messaging bill. this is not an anti-e.p.a. bill or anti-air toxic standards bill. instead it's a commonsense bill that would address a very deficiency in current law that is only going to become more prominent in coming years. this is one of a handful of bills that is supported by both democrats and republicans in the energy and commerce committee and it's also

supported from the utility industry. that's why i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill, and i yield back my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. olson: mr. speaker, at this time i still see no colleagues on my side of the aisle to speak so i am willing to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers so at this time we'll yield back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. olson: mr. speaker, in closing, h.r. 4273 is a bipartisan, commonsense piece of legislation that ensures that the lights will come on when it's dark, the heat will come on when it's cold and the air conditioning will come on when it's hot. and lives will be saved. i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 4273. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r.

4273 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 897. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 897, a bill to provide authority and sanctioning of the granting and

issue of programs for residential and commuter toll, user fear and fare discounts by states, municipalities, other localities and all related agencies and departments and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford, and the gentleman from washington, mr. larson, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crawford: because of the geographic area in which they live, many americans don't have many transportation options as others. as a result, these people are more directly impacted by highway and bridge tolls and -- than others who have other transportation options. state and local governments have the ability to offer discounted rates for residents

in specific geographic areas. they can mitigate the impact on tolls for those who have fewer transportation options. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask permission to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. larsen: mr. speaker, i understand the objective of the legislation before the house today. to clarify the existing authority of public authorities to offer discounts in transportation tolls to residents of communities faced with limited transportation access and heavy toll burdens. last congress the house passed similar legislation. that legislation at the time introduced by mr. mcmahon of new york, reaffirmed the authorities of states and local governments to provide discounted fares or tolerates for residents under undue

hardships. we recognize the residents of staten islands face some of the highest toll burdens in the country. the legislation passed by the last congress would have provided a targeted approach to address the unique challenges facing communities like staten island. unfortunately, unlike mr. mcmahon's bill from last congress, h.r. 897, as currently drafted, is overly broad and raises some potential legal issues. a number of user organizations, including the american highway users alliance, have raised concerns that h.r. 897 could lead to discrimination against interstate commerce and preclude constitutional challenges to an individual toll or fare discount program. unfortunately, the committee on transportation and infrastructure have not held any hearings to understand the implications of this legislation. the republican leadership has decided to bring this bill to the floor with no notice under

suspension of the rules prior to the important issues raised by this bill being examined and if necessary addressed. mr. speaker, the house should be considering legislation to simply reinforce the right of communities to reduce the extreme toll burdens borne by captive toll payers. it should not impede interstate commerce by encourage really states and public authorities to find ways to shift the burden of tolls to out-of-state residents or truckers, for that matter, or those making longer through trips. mr. speaker, not all residential-based toll counts are necessary appropriate but some are. the context and how they are implemented are important to determining if they are appropriate and unfortunately as currently drafted h.r. 897 could be used to remove any case that could be made against the toll discount program. in that sense it is overly broad and unreasonable. so i would hope that as we move forward we can address the concerns of the highway user community and ensure that this

legislation is not used to preclude challenges to toll discount programs, and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to recognize the sponsor of this bill for such time as he may consume, the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. grimm. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for such time as he shall consume. mr. grimm: i thank the gentleman and i thank the chair. to clarify, this bill, which i stand in strong support of -- before that i want to say i thank my colleague and friend, gregory meeks, for all his work on this and it was a true bipartisan effort. but this bill, all it does is clarify what is already allowed by law. so to say that it's overly broad is -- it's almost ridiculous because, again, all this does is clarify what's already allowed by law. states and cities already have it. there were challenges in court that have failed, and the

purpose of this legislation is to make sure those frivolous challenges don't continue to go forward. but the residential community toll fairness act i feel it's vital to toll booth discount programs, specifically for my constituents, but through all of new york and throughout this country. and i'd like to also thank chairman mica, who traveled to my district, to staten island, for moving this bill forward and for seeing firsthand in staten island the devastating affects and the impact tolls can have. again, this bill, all it does is continue to clarify and allow the states and municipal governments to offer the discounted tolerates for those taken on bridges, rail, ferry and other transportation systems. i introduced the legislation for one purpose. it was in response to a 2009 case in which the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit questioned the constitutionality of discounts

for residents of towns bordering the new york throughway. in new york we simply can't afford to lose our discounts. the majority of my district in new york city is an island. it's staten island. and the only way to drive on or off the island is to cross a bridge and pay a toll, something many of my residents do often as part of their daily commute. without a discount it cost $13 to cross the bridge. yeah, i said $13. without the staten island residential e.z. pass discount. on the other side of staten island, the cash tolls on three bridges are going -- have just gone up to $12. $12. and that amount is slated to go up in 2015 to $15. that's without the residential discount. so on staten island we have fought long and hard to reach an agreement on rizzdention toll discounts which is why

this legislation is crucial to making sure we protect those new rates. the residential community toll fairness act provides clarification only of existing authority for local governments to issue user fear and fare discount programs based on residential status. it provides authorization for discount programs. so passage of 897 is nothing more than clarification of what can already be done, and i ask for the strong pour of my colleagues. with -- support of my colleagues. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. larsen: i'd like to enter into the record a letter expressing concern about the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. larsen: second, i think the gentleman from new york makes a compelling case for why the bill should be more narrowly focused, and, third, mr. speaker, i may say things on

the floor that people disagree with but i do save my almost ridiculous statements off the floor and not on the floor of the house. and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. >> i rezehr the gentleman has nothing further. mr. lar zen: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas. >> i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 897. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. kline: i move to suspend the rules and pass h r. 579 -- >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 57 7 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: a bill to amend 46 united states code with respect to minnesota and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota, mr. cravaack, and the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, will each control 20 minutes. mr. cravaack: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cravaack: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cravaack: thank you, mr.

speaker. in march, 2010, the u.s. coast guard ruled that mil ambings cs lake was a -- that mil lembings lacs lake was a federally navigable water body. currently, the rum river is dammed in three places and the same army corps report said the dams prohibit through navigation. in addition, two previous army corps determinations in 1931 and 1974 also considered the river nonnavigable. i'd like to submit the u.s. coast guard determination for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cravaack: thank you, mr. speaker. now the u.s. coast guard is forcing all mille lacs lake

fishing guides to spend time and money to obtain a federal boating license this can run well over $2,000. according to testimony by the u.s. coast forward in the transportation and infrastructure committee, they have to travel to toledo, ohio, or st. louis, missouri, in order to apply for these licenses in person and to take tests. this new coast guard regulation is making it -- is killing jobs and making it impractical for guides to stay in business and making hard for tourists to hire their services. this will remove this burdensome administrative everreach and restores to the state of mp the original authority to permit and inspect vessels. i truly appreciate all the coast forward does. i truly do. but the state of minnesota already patrols mille lacs lack quite well and the coast

guard's authority over the lake is unwanted and an intrusion. it's duplicative and nonexistent. this would be a new area of patrol for the coast guard, regarding new equipment and manpower. the state has rules in place to keep its residents safe and has been doing so for as long as anyone can remember. the state is perfectly capable of enforcing boats laws on the lake and ultimately, the lake belongs to minnesotans and should not be controlled by the federal government. we heard from the u.s. coast guard on the issue the coast guard subcommittee hearing on may 24, 2011. rear admiral kevin cook and deputy j.a.g. alvin lederer, talked about the burden this would pose on minnesota fishing guides. additionally, they were unable to provide adequate justification for it beyond the army corps report. my legislation would stop fishing guides from pg forced

to spend $2,000 to obtain a fishing license they don't need. ultimately, it will allow minnesotans to focus on what's most important, enjoying one of minnesota's most beautiful lakes. this has been fully vetted by the mille lacs band. state voting law administrators. this legislation is also supported by the minnesota department of labor and industry. fishing guides and resort owners. minnesota anglers for habitat. and minnesota outdoor heritage alliance. i'd like to submit for the record a letter of support for the minnesota outdoor heritage alliance. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cravaack: senator clobeshire introduced companion legislation co-sponsored by senator franken. tim walz and others lent their support as well. i'd like to thank jeff and john

for the coast guard subcommittee staff for working with me on the language of this amendment as well as tom dylan from legislative counsel. i'd like to thank joe damato, for prosiding his guidance and expertise, as well as mr. kim elvrim from the minnesota department of natural resources and george nitty of nitty's point hunt resort. though this bill is short, a lot of work went into making sure it accomplishes the goals of restoring injure diction to minnesota. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. larsen: this bill exempts small boat operators from u.s. coast guard licensing and inspection requirements.

it provides narrow regulatory relief however, because the bill was rushed to markup without first having a hearing on the bill itself or having a subcommittee on coast guard and maritime transportation consider the specific bill, no one can say for sure what the consequence -- what consequences might arise in the future. my concerns are somewhat allayed by learning that the state of minnesota has an adequate program to regulate vessels operating on its inland lakes, including this one. nevertheless, the coast guard expressed concerns about limitations imposed on its authority could create uncertainty and confusion among the boating public especially concerning maritime casualty informations. in the withstanding this and pause it would not vacate the coast guard's 2010 decision that the lake is navigable, i do not object to the bill moving forward today. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: i thank my respected colleague for his kind remarks. i reserve as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. larsen: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: i thank you very much for having this colloquy today and ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation to minnesota and i yield back the balance of my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the mans of his time the request is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5797 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the -- without objection, the title is amended.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h r. 4651 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tite of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3158, a bill to direct the administrator of the environmental protection agent stoy change the spill, control, and countermeasure rule with respect to certain farms. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from arkansas, mr.

crawford, and the gentleman from iowa, mr. boswell, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their rashes and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3158. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so order. mr. draw spord feather i speeled myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crawford: i'd like to thank members from both parties that joined in co-sponsoring this to bill to provide relief to our farmers. the e.p.a.-mandated oil spill prevention control or spcc requires that oil storage facilities with a exassoy ty of 1,320 gallons make modifications to reduce the possibility of oil spills. it requires farmers to conduct a containment facility which must contain 110% of the fuel in the containers.

these structures along with necessary inspections will cost tens of thousands of dollars. in some cases higher than $60,000 for a single farmer in my district. the program tates back to 1973 shortly after the clean water act was signed into law. in the last decade it has strictly come down on agriculture and the rules have been amended, delayed and, tended dozens of times, creating enormous confusion in the farming community. the e.p.a. failed to reach out to producers. the e.p.a. lifted a 2006 rule that suspended requirements with oil storage of 10,000 gallons or less. the rule applies to more than just fuel. it applies to hydraulic oil, crop oil, vegetable and even animal fat. last summer i headed up an effort to send a bipartisan effort with over 100 co-signers highlight problems with the

program and requesting a permanent fix. at the very least, i requested a delay to those affected by the natural disasters. they waited until a week before the november deadline and said they would not start enforcing until mid may. this bill requires e.p.a. to be reflective of the spill risk. it would be adjusted upward from 1,320 to an amount that would protect small farms. it would place a greater degree to sell certified compliance if they exceed the exemption level. the producer must be able to demonstrate he or she has no history of oil spills this legislation is necessary because the existing regulations are not only burdensome to small farmers, they're unenforce.

able according to usda, the current regulations bring 70% of farm into the regulatory net. this is more than 1.5 million farms in the regulatory net next year alone. the university of arkansas division of agriculture did a study recently concluded that the fuel act would exempt over 0% producers from s.e.c. compliance. it could save in my home state up to $240 million in costs over the entire cust -- in costs. over the intercountry it could save up to $3.36 billion. this year the ag sector is facing a crisis. food osts -- costs are projected to skyrocket for consumers. on top of that the state of a multiyear farm bill is unknown, creating long-term uncertainty for the agriculture community. the last thing the government should be doing is imposing regular laces on producers to cost the nation's family farmers up to $3.36 billion. there's absolutely no justification for such an expensive regulation,

especially when the e.p.a. cannot provide data or evidence of agricultural spills. family farmers are already careful stewards of the land and water. no one has more at stake than those who work on the ground from which they derive a livelihood. i urge adoption of h.r. 3158 and reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. i want you to know that as a hands on farmer, producer, i appreciate the efforts you put into this to bringing this forward because -- there are too many times where we see the farmers in my state, your state, across the country that burden with these extra expenses and criteria that they

don't really need because you know, i know and i think those of us familiar with the farming industry we are stewards of the land. mr. boswell: we don't want to ruin the land. we certainly don't want to ruin the water. this is a good thing to come forward with this piece of legislation, to put a practical sense, practical application of the situation that have been delayed, delayed and delayed. it refers to american farmers. american farmers are very much dedicated to what they represent and, again, those that as i do and i'm sure that you do and others when we had fuel on the farm to run the tractors, combines, pumps, irrigation pumps, whatever, we're very careful. and the cost of the fuel and the exposure of it being stolen or something is something we don't have a lot of excess

sitting around anyways. so i appreciate what you've offered up here and i'm very supportive of it and with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. crawford crawford -- mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. again, thank you, mr. boswell, not only for your support but for your common sense as an ag producer. i'd like to yield one minute -- two minutes to my esteemed colleague from oklahoma, thank him for his patience and the gentleman from oklahoma. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. lankford: thank you. i do want to be able to tell the story of an oklahoma farm that the things that they are up against right now are common to farms across the midwest that deal with drought right now, they're dealing with the threat of dust particulate

rules brought down from the e.p.a. they want to have family farms to be able to function with their own kids, their cousin's farm down the road, is that permissible or not? farm truck distance rules, if they want to drive 151 miles in their farm truck in the new regulations, all these different regulations. and then imagine the federal government contacting them and say on top of all those rules and all those threatened rules, now you need to go find a professional engineer to check out your fuel tank. we want to send a regulator and we want you to have a whole new set of rules around your tank as well. it assumes family farms and farmers don't take care of their land. nothing could be further from the truth. family farms and farms all around the country, these are individuals that they farm that land, they take care of that land, that water's very important to them. many live on well water them self to a spill is incredibly

important to them and their family as well. they are great stewards of the land. that's how they make their living. they're careful guardians of their storage tank because that tank itself, if it spills they lose a tremendous amount of money. and the margins on a farm are not very high. so i'd like to stand with my colleagues as well to say let's respect the farmer and for what they're doing already on their land and not send someone from washington to come check out their farm and check out their tank and to be able to evaluate those things. let's allow some trust to the commonsense folks that take care of our food and land and water every single day. with that i urge my colleagues to support this and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. boswell: i thank you, mr. speaker. i say this in closing, we have no other speakers. i feel like we've defined what the need is. this will be very helpful to the nation's producers and it's a step in the right direction. so i will urge agreement and

support of h.r. 3158 and thank you again for bringing this forward and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i thank the gentleman from iowa and to those who spoke tonight. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3158, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 752, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 6233, to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance available for fiscal year 2012 with the costs of such assistance offset by changes to certain conservation programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1171 with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1171, a bill to re-authorize and amend the marine debris research, prevention, and reduction act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska.

mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1171. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, h.r. 1171, the marine debris act amendments of 2012 re-authorizes the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, noaa, marine debris program at currently appropriated levels through 2015. the program has played a crucial role in preventing and reducing the amounts of trash in our beaches and oceans. i think it's important to note that our program is not regulatory in nature. it takes a voluntary approach to improving the conditions of our marine environment. failure to adequately address marine debris has major consequences on our economy. large objects polluting our oceans threaten the safe navigations of cargo ships and recreational boaters.

it cost fishermen thousands of dollars. and it forces the closing of beaches, a major blow to the economy's reliance on tourism. in alaska, we have worked with local partners to collect more than 20 projects that have removed 750,000 pounds of debris from our shoreline since 2006. but the problem marine debris is about to get worse for alaska and other pacific coast states. noaa estimates there's 1.5 million tons of debris headed our way as a result of the 2011 japanese earthquake and tsunami. alaskans are already finding styrofoam, plastic, wood and other lightweight debris washing up on our island. they were forced to -- re-authorization of the marine debris program is critical to how alaska and other coastal states protect our economic and ecosystem and ensure the safety

of those in our waters. i want to commend representative sam farr from california for introducing this bill. as the original co-sponsor of this important bipartisan effort, i urge all members to support the bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask permission to yield as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. larsen: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1171, bipartisan legislation that re-authorizes the marine debris research prevention and reduction act through fiscal year 2015. just on the pacific coast, an entire 70-foot dock washed up on the coast of oregon. this is only one piece of the estimated 1.5 million tons of marine debris from the disastrous 2011 japanese tsunami that will wash up on the west coast. disasters like this are why it is so important that we

re-authorize this legislation today. marine debris remains a persistent threat to maritime safety and to the health of our oceans and to our lakes. thanks to the inen actment of the marine debris research and prevention act of 2006, we have a much better understanding of marine debris and the impacts of our shoreline. this law lead to the establishment of partnerships between the national oceanic and atmospheric administration or noaa and the united states coast guard. it is -- it has led to better coordinated research and debris removal of activities. and it built greater understanding of the challenges we face in addressing this threat. marine debris is a much larger and growing problem than we first thought, and with the recent disaster in japan it will continue to grow. cleaning up debris requires expensive resources to clean up. earlier this week, noaa provided a new analysis estimating it costs the agency on average more than $4,300 on

average to remove one ton of debris from the environment. noaa also said that the dock that washed up on the shores of oregon will cost $85,000 alone. despite what we've learned and despite the fact that states on the pacific coast and hawaii will have to contend with 1.5 million tons of marine debris from the 2011 japanese tsunami for years to come, the majority has insisted on cutting authorized funding levels for this program in half. cutting authorized funding for this program at this time seems shorget sighted. i'm confident -- shortsighted. and i'm confident that the senate will insist on the higher funding level in the final compromised bill. despite the reservations, it is imperative we re-authorize the marine debris act today to address the growing threat in our future. i want to thank the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from california, mr. farr, for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 1171, and i

reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to now yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from california, mr. farr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and thank you very much for yielding. and i truly appreciate the support and the bipartisan fashion for this legislation known as the marine debris act amendments of 2012. this bill was first carried in the united states -- introduced in the united states senate by the late senator ted stevens. they recognized senators from states that are in a way from -- hawaii, the entire island, surrounded by ocean and so much washes up on the shores of the islands. and alaska with probably one of the longest coastlines in the united states, certainly impacts from the ocean on them.

and that's why it's so nice and wonderful to have my colleague, don young from alaska, the only representative in the house from alaska, to be a strong proponent of this. as he pointed out, alaska's already seen the consequences of not having re-authorization when the japanese tsunami started to wash up. they spent in the first wave of the tsunami debris, alaska has spent over $200,000 of state money in just aerial monitoring of the local debris from the japanese tsunami. what this legislation does is in re authorization is allow states to receive grants from noaa so that the states can deal with their coastline debris problems. it is important to do this for a bigger purpose and that is frankly life on land is dependent on the quality of life at sea. and we know that