continue." one of the young people walking beside me said, "major, give us a moment to kneel and pray." and the major said, "troopers advance." >> "across that bridge" author and congressman john lewis, sunday at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> we'll go back to live coverage of the house when members return shortly. host: joining us here on the "washington journal," representative from ohio. mr. jordan, we have been talking with our viewers about the auto bailout, your district in ohio has some auto plants, suppliers, etc. was it the right policy? guest: i voted against it. i think g.m. obviously was in a difficult way, but there are other ways to get to solutions short of taking taxpayer money and giving it to certain companies. i think once you start down this

road, where does it end? we have seen, for example, we have seen the department of energy, we have seen this administration pick companies they are going to give your tax dollars to that have now bankrupt solyndra. once you start down this road i think it's a dangerous place to go and it never seems to end. we need to get back to letting the market work. letting businesses succeed and fail on their own merits. i understand there were ways you could structure a bankruptcy proceeding where g.m. could come out on the other side and become a great company. didn't feet like putting taxpayer money at risk and bail them out. i was opposed to it. host: did you get blowback from your constituents? guest: the other thing to keep in mind is, remember you had the auto task force essentially running the company. think about where we have been with this administration. did you ever think you would see a president of the united states

fire the c.e.o. of general motors? did you ever see the government general motors or 26 companies in the solar and wind, new energy area? you have seen things we never thought we would witness here, and you have to keep that in mind as well. what i will tell you, the auto task force, i believe, decided to close a plant in mansfield, ohio, which i get the privilege of representing, a plant that employed a lot of folks, a lot of families depended on, and once the auto task force took over general motors, this plant was closed. i do see that impact which took place in our district in the state of ohio. host: last night the house of representatives voted on tax cuts. to extend the bush era tax cuts for a year. the headline in the "washington post." what was the point of that vote? guest: the point is not have taxes go up at a time when we are trying to get our economy to grow. at some point someone's going to have to tell me how raising taxes is going to create jobs.

because that's what the other side is talking about. that's what the senate voted to do. they voted to raids taxes on job creators, small business owners, entrepreneurs. someone's going to have to convince me how that is actually going to translate into job creation and economic growth. it just doesn't -- it's not common sense. it doesn't work that way. what we said is let's try to provide a little certainty for the job creators in our economy and let's say, look, taxes around going to go up for a year. we are going to extend the current rates, tax polcy, and give us a year if in fact the election goes away, i hope it's going to go, i think it's going to go, and we have a republican president and republican senate. we maintain the house. then we'll have an opportunity to actually reform this complicated tax code. we need to do two things. we need to make sure taxes don't increase, and then secondly we need to reform the tax code. i spoke to a group yesterday, i said think about our tax code. i do this with every group i speak to. how many think we need a new tax

code? every hand goes up. this is not just business leaders. these are teachers and government workers. everyone understands the tax code is too complex. think of it any tax code on the personal side that says, 47% of the population won't pay, won't participate in the income tax, is broken. and any tax code on the corporate side which says to american companies, you are going to pay the highest corporate rate in the world when are you trying to compete in an international market and stupid. if it's broken awe stupid, you might want to throw it out. freeze the rates where they are now. don't let taxes go up. and nextier reform the tax code and get something that's simpler, fairer, flatter, and more conducive to economic growth. host: how does that vote fit in with all the discussions right now about the budget and six-month c.r. is there any effect this vote is not going to -- goip it is

important to let the american people know where you stand -- >> discussion from today's "washington journal." back to live coverage of the u.s. house. 5986, a bill to amend the african growth and opportunity act to extend the third-country fabric program and to add south sudan to the list of countries eligible for designation under that act, to make technical corrections to the harmonized tariff schedule of the united states relating to the textile and apparel rules of origin for the dominican republic-central america-united states free trade agreement, to approve the renewal of import restrictions contained in the burmese freedom and democracy act of 2003. and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr.

speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: 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. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i urge passage of this legislation to strengthen trade and investment ties with africa and support well-paying jobs in the united states. the legislation also extends the president's authority to impose the import ban on products from berma for an additional three years and -- burma for an additional three years. the legislation has broad bipartisan support and is supported by all stakeholders. we have strengthened ties with subsaharan africa. the apparel industry has been a major goal.

jobs in the textile and apparel industry have more than doubled. growing from 19,000 to 45,000 because of agoa. this bill extends the third country fabric provisions which are vital to ensuring the continued success of the agoa program and ensures the new republic of south sudan is eligible to benefit from agoa. under the trade agreement, trade has grown substantially and since the implementation of this agreement, the trade deficit the united states previously had with these countries has turned into a trade surplus. today's legislation builds upon that success by further improving the agreements textile rules of origin. these changes encourage greater use of u.s. inputs in the countries which supports u.s. jobs and improves trade integration in our hemisphere. in 2003, congress passed the burmese freedom and democracy

act which included an import ban on products of burma renewable once a year for a total of three years. the law's been extended twice. this legislation extends the president's authority to oppose the import ban for an additional three years and re-authorizes the actual import sanctions for one year. now, i want to acknowledge the positive developments in burma over the last year. but much work remains ahead with respect to political and economic reforms, human rights, the release of political prisoners, freedom of speech, press, association as well as religion and the treatment of ethnic groups within the country. all factors required for full termination of the import sanctions and other restrictions in the 2003 law. i encourage the burmese government to continue its current reform and commence others to fully address the concerns that led congress to pass the 2003 law. for all of these reasons we urgently need to pass this important legislation. i urge all of my colleagues to

support this bipartisan legislation and, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this bill which extends expiring provisions of the african growth and opportunity act, adds the country of south sudan to a list of countries eligible for trade preferences and renews the burma sanctions. the expiring third country fabric provision is the cornerstone of agoa and one of the most valuable parts of our trading relationship with africa. tens of thousands of workers and hundreds of companies depend on this provision. it is critical that we extend it now before it expires next month. we have delayed this extension for a year, and this unnecessary delay has cost thousands of jobs and millions

in investment. it has hurt progress in africa. it could have -- we could have avoided this senseless job loss here and africa. i introduced the legislation to extend third country fabric and add south sudan over a year ago. the delay was just politics, and we unfortunately are in an era where commonsense things can't get done. as usual the political games accomplish nothing. agoa itself was truly bipartisan. we all worked together to compromise it and get a good thing done. that was a different era. at least today's vote will reflect some of the bipartisanship that has been a hallmark of agoa from the start. the bill also adds south sudan to the list of agoa eligible countries. south sudan deserves every opportunity and every vote of confidence we can muster. this package also contains important technical fixes for cafta textiles.

that's from central america. businesses and workers have been waiting for since february of last year. i also am pleased that we're renewing our evolving policy for burma. burma has made important steps in the last 18 months, but there's still a long way to go. i'm particularly pleased with the investment transparency measures that the state department has put forward. they are innovative, common sense and exactly what investors and the american public need and expect. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to the distinguished chairman of the trade subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. i join my colleagues in strong support of passage of this

important bipartisan legislation to deepen trade ties with the sub-saharan africa and the central american , dominican rep rick countries. as mr. camp pointed out, this legislation is strongly supported by american textile industry and will help integrated supply chains between the united states and both africa and central america. maximizing the benefits of the agreements we describe as agoa and cafta d.r. these support well-paying jobs, in jobs in sub-saharan africa and south america. i was proud to pass cafta-dr. and i'm proud to see this successful agreement be further improved through the legislation we are considered -- considering today. this extends the president's authority to continue the import ban under the 2003 burmese freedom and democracy act.

i am not normally a fan of unilateral sanctions, but i believe these programs must be evaluated carefully to determine their effectiveness for america's economy. i also recognize it is the sole remain -- as the sole remaining superpower, we have the opportunity to show our disapproval of rogue states and human rights abusers. the sanctions under the 2003 law is a model in this regard, and i can say that recent developments in burma confirm the need for continuous evaluation. although the burmese government has taken many positive steps, these reforms must continue and grow until the citizens of burma can gain true political and economic freedom. the goal's very much at the heart of the original 2003 law. for that reason i believe we should continue the current sanctions regime as the international community keeps a watchful eye on development.

at the end of the day, this is a jobs bill and a bipartisan one at that. i urge my colleagues to support this essential legislation, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. rangel: i thank you so much. it was such a pleasure being knocked around with bipartisanship. i hope we can explain what it means to some of the newer members. but as i was talking with jim mcdermott, whose ideas first created this legislation, some of the other side was -- mr. crane from illinois, that was the co-sponsor. speaker gingrich, who was the first witness for this bill, as i introduced it. and, of course, president clinton, who took a bipartisan group of members to africa not only to help these african

countries but to help american industry and the textile industry. but more importantly than anything, the united states became a symbol of being able to help people, not just by handouts, but by teaching them exactly what has to be done. . jim mcdermott is right when it comes to picking up the pieces and moving forward in terms of expiration dates and people not knowing how to invest, let's face it, jim, in today's climate this is some sort of legislative miracle and it was completed with the help of karen bass, who came here and she worked the devil out of people on the other side of the aisle. they got so annoyed with her i had to come in and let the committee members know that she's new here, but when she gets involved in something, that the senate, the other body, doesn't mean that much and that got a call for involvement in this thing. it was his idea all along to

get this thing through and we have done it. i do hope, chairman camp, we might snatch what this means in bipartisanship and maybe long and difficult before this session ends to find something else, but i know that those who played a role in this over a decade ago and see that we are moving forward in that bipartisan way with the foreign affairs committee, the ways and means committee, that we all leave here as better legislators. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i just have one remaining speaker so i'm going to reserve. before i do that i just want to acknowledge mr. rangel's remarks and acknowledge his leadership on this issue over many years. he was at the forefront of making this agoa agreement a reality and i want to thank him for that and for all of his hard work over a very long period of time. at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i

yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, joe crowley. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. crowley: i thank my friend and colleague from washington for yielding me this time. i would thank all those involved in bringing this important legislation to the floor and doing it, all be it a little late in some components, but getting it here all the same. i understand it was not necessarily the house of representatives that was the reason for the hold up but i am very pleased we are here today. i also want to make note of the baby steps we may be taking here in terms of bipartisanship. chairman camp, as well as my colleagues on my side of the aisle, i think those watching today may be a little glimmer of hope that more can be accomplished in the weeks to come before the elections. i am not necessarily holding my breath but i want to make that offer that i'm interested in seeing that happen. even though there are baby

steps, it should not diminish the importance of the legislation we have before us today. as much as, mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this bipartisan measure. part of the legislation is provision that i introduced to maintain the ban on imports from burr ma for one -- burma for one additional year, it's passage will demonstrate america's ongoing commitment to advancement of human rights. when i traveled to burma last january, i was the first member of congress to officially travelle to that country in 12 years. i saw the possibilities for change with my own eyes. i saw the families of political prisoners hoping for a genuine and permanent freedom. i saw ethnic minority leaders expressing the belief that reconciliation was possible. and i saw the tremendous courage of aung san suu kyi, a leader so dedicated to her

people she was undeterred for nearly two decades under house arrest. no, she did not demand that this bill be passed into law. in fact, she has urged a decrease in some international pressure -- an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional half minute. mr. crowley: she has urged a decrease in international pressure on burma, but by renewing this bill today and keeping the measure on the books even as we are open to new flexibilities, we will help send a strong signal to those in burmial that the united states will continue to focus on the need for the immediate release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. and then to violence against all minorities, including and the adoption of adoption of genuine democratic reform in

burma. i stand in strong support of this bill and i urge its immediate adoption. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: at this time i yield to the distinguished gentleman from california such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i was one of the original authors of this measure along with jim mcdermott and charlie rangel. and i know how much work over the last week has gone into this in terms of the work by chairman dave camp, by karen bass, and by others who have worked to get this bill out of the senate. i wanted to make a few observations on this measure and the impact it has had. i chair the africa subcommittee when we passed the african growth and opportunity act, it was bipartisan, it was historic, before africa policy was just a policy. with agoa, we created a trade

policy for africa. with agoa we have seen exports and imports double into sub-saharan africa. and i have had the opportunity to see this program's benefits hundreds of thousands of jobs, most held by women, created in the apparel sector. boosting very poor countries in africa. and agoa has also strengthened the rule of law in africa because that's one of the conditions that when we wrote this bill and marked it up, we put that conditionality on, that eligibility criteria. i just wanted to remind the members for a minute, and this is testimony from the chairman of the african cotton and textile industries federation, the eligibility criteria of agoa compelled most african countries to embrace the rule of law, to allow for political

pluralism, and respect democracy and basic human rights. those were requirements. and the move toward independent judges and an independent judicial system separate of the government in order to enforce the rule of law was very, very important across the continent. and if we didn't act today because today is the last day, to extend the third country provision, these jobs would have shifted to asia. and that's what we are -- that's what we were told in the hearings that we held on both the house and senate side on this issue. already a number of jobs have been lost to asia because of uncertainty over whether congress would act. there's a second provision that i think is very important and that's the south sudan eligibility. south sudan became an independent country in july of 2011. and for those of us that have

visited south sudan and have been in sudan to see the situation, it's very important that sudan, south sudan get this opportunity. prior to its independence, exporters in south sudan were eligible for agoa benefits as part of sudan, and this legislation ensures that these exporters continue to be eligible for agoa benefits, very important to the new economy. in that new country. both bodies must act today. both bodies must do this so that we can put this bill on the president's desk. we have worked over the years, our coalition, with both president clinton and president bush. we have traveled to africale with the former president in order to help sell him on this idea and to sell our colleagues on this consetcht. and today with the changes that

we are seeing, with the economic growth that we are seeing across sub-saharan africa, i think we can be jointly proud of this bipartisan effort. so i think it is a lesson in doing the right thing. and i again want to congratulate chairman dave camp and his staff and our friends on the other side of the aisle, especially karen bass, for the flurry of activity over the last 72 hours and with meetings in our senate colleagues to get this done. mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. bass, as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. bass: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman from washington state, mr. mcdermott, for his leadership and i also want to acknowledge congressman rangel for his historical commitment to agoa, but in addition i want to thank

as i stand here next to two men who i consider giants in the house of representatives, i want to thank them for their patience and their guidance with me in -- as a new member here. it's been pretty amazing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, mr. royce, mr. camp, mr. mcdermott, mr. rangel, as they all worked with me to make sure that we were able to be here this moment and pass agoa. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of african growth and opportunity legislation, h.r. 5986, passage of today's legislation comes as a result of strong and widespread bipartisan and bicameral support. it's been a pleasure to work alongside mr. royce in this bipartisan effort and i also want to thank my friend from the senate, senator koonce, who has been a stalwart advocate. i want to acknowledge the

african diplomatic corps, thousands it is not hundreds of thousands of jobs will be saved as a result of your efforts. mr. speaker, africa is on the rise. today six of the world's fastest growing economies are in africa. opportunities abound and we see increased political stability. today's house vote on the extension of agoa's fabric provision is by all measures a success for the u.s. and africa alike. but we must not stop here. let us take a moment to acknowledge this accomplishment, but also prepare ourselves for agoa's re-authorization in 2015. africa, a continent of opportunity for too long, has been overshadowed and ignored. while humanitarian governance and health challenges remain, we are the observers of remarkable growth and stability across the continent that exemplify positive strides that africans themselves have made. africa and its many nations stand on the critical precipice

of extraordinary change. increasingly africa's resource, mineral, wealth attracts investments by countries like china, brazil, and india. we must in the united states increase our investment. we cannot allow our nation to be left behind. thank you very much. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. at this time, mr. speaker, i yield to the distinguished chairman of the rules committee, the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, who has been active in trade issues his entire career in congress. as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, many of us have enjoyed saying over the past several years that if we don't shape the global economy, we will be shaped by it. and we also have as we all know so much attention focused on divisions that exist in this institution. we know that the media likes to cover pictures, mistakes, and

conflict. and obviously conflict here is something that the media likes to focus attention on. here we are, democrats and republicans, coming together under the great leadership of my friend, dave camp, the chairman of the ways and means committee, we have the ranking member of the trade subcommittee, mr. brady, who was here earlier, chairman of the trade subcommittee working to focus on this notion of our shaping the global economy. as i look over and see my friend from new york, mr. rangel, i am reminded of december, 1999, he and i were with president clinton in seattle, washington, at the ministerial meeting of the world trade organization. that meeting itself was -- turned out to be an abject failure. the meeting itself was an abject failure. i'll never forget the week after that ministerial meeting in 1999 the cover of "the economist" magazine said who lost in seattle? and the photograph was a starving baby in bangladesh.

but the good thing that did emerge from that meeting in seattle that we attended back in 1999 was the fact that we were vigorously pursuing the africa growth and opportunity act, and we have laid the groundwork, again working in a bipartisan way, to say that pursuing trade not aid was the best thing for everyone. mr. camp was testifying before the ways and means -- rules committee the other day and we are talking about this issue of a zero sum game when it comes to taxes. and we also have to recognize when it comes to the issue of trade it is not a zero sum game. it is a win-win for us. and that's why i believe that if you look at all the issues covered in this measure, whether it's the africa growth and opportunity act, whether it's focusing on a great presented to the south, central

american countries and the dominican republic, whether it's looking at the area where i'm going to be next week, next week i'm headed to burma and i'm so enthused about the changes taking place, we need to encourage that and i believe the action that is we are taking here can play a role and continue to encourage the positive reforms that we are seeing take place in burma. we are not there yet. that's why we need to take this action, but we are moving in the right direction. . the newest country in the world, south sudan. last month i was there when they marked their first anniversary of existence. this is a country that is seeking to get its sea legs and i was pleased to be there with mr. price who co-chairs our house democracy partnership and we were looking at the idea of possibly putting together a partnership between this new parliament with a very impressive speaker in south sudan and the united states

house of representatives. and the idea of incorporating south sudan part of the african growth and opportunity act is why we want to strengthen ties with new democracies around the world, not just politically but commercially as well. and so, mr. speaker, i strongly support this effort. i congratulate my friends on both sides of the aisle who are making it happen and i especially express appreciation to my very, very good friend, mr. camp, who has cheampted this and so many other -- championed this and so many other things together. and i hope we put together a strong bipartisan effort to implement the notion of bringing about real, meaningful tax reform. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: may i inquire how much time remains?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 10 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from michigan has 6 1/2. mr. mcdermott: does the gentleman from michigan have any more speakers? mr. camp: i have no further speakers. mr. mcdermott: ok. i'll close and then we'll finish. mr. speaker, i want to rise and say many people played a part in all of this. nothing in congress ever gets done by one person. nothing ever gets done by one side or the other. the good things had a happen here always happen on a bipartisan basis, and i'm sorry ed royce left because ed royce and i worked together. one day he called me and he said, jim, i'm going out to africa to look at some of the places that the agoa act is working. will you go with me? i said, why? he said, i need a democrat on the trip. that kind of relationship is rare unfortunately and i think

that people need to recognize that it is still going on, that this place runs on trust. very early on in this session, i said to dave camp, when are you going to bring up the agoa act? and he said, it's going to come up. i asked him many times up and he said it's going to come up, and i told all my africa friends, it's going to come up because dave camp said it's going to come up. and i'm really pleased to acknowledge that he kept his word. because what this place runs on is trust. if you don't trust somebody in here, then you don't do business with them. if you trust them, even if it takes them a long time and you have to poke them a bunch of times, you know that ultimately he's going to do what he said he was going to do. and i want to acknowledge chairman camp for that because i think it is reflective of

what can make it possible for us to do tax reform in this house. it is something that took a long time. the last time they did it. but it was built on the trust between reagan and tip o'neill and it took a bit of time but it will happen if we learn to act the behalf of the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i want to thank the ranking member of the trade subcommittee for his comments, his kind comments. this really was a team effort, and for his leadership as well over the years, a lot of people on both sides of the aisle came together to make this a reality. i'll just briefly say that this is bipartisan legislation that does deepen our trade and investment ties with africa and with the cafta-dr countries, that also supports well-paying

jobs here in the united states as well as, as mr. dreier stated, in other countries. this is not a zero sum game. this will help both of our nations as well as africa. also, this legislation re-authorizes the import ban on burmese products and i urge its passage and 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. 5986. 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 and 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 gentledy from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. by the direction of the committee on rules i call up

house resolution 752 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 157, house resolution 75 2. -- 752. resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house 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. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on agriculture, and two, one motion to recommit.

ms. foxx: mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: house resolution 752 is a closed rule providing for consideration of h.r. 6233, the agricultural disaster assistance act of 2012. as a life-long farmer myself, including operating a nursery and being a beekeeper, i can certainly empathize of being vulnerable to mother nature and the plight caused by unpredixible weather. without a doubt, the god lord has blessed this country with an abundance of natural gifts, and i'm very thankful for

america's farmers who work to utilize and proeffect these blessings to help -- protect these blessings and help feed the world. the drought devastating so much of the united states this year has yielded a tremendous amount of financial hardships, not only for these farmers, but also for those throughout the rest of the economy that depend on their products. mr. speaker, it's important to remember that it's not just farmers affected by this drought. the consequences of this disaster impact all americans, from those living in the biggest cities to those living in the most remote areas of this country. not only does drought aggravate the risk of wildfires that have raged throughout the west, but it compromises our crops which are used to feed our livestock and even fuel our cars. and the effects will last long after rain brings much-needed relief. with the price of corn jumping 50% since june, grocery costs continue to climb. the department of agriculture

now estimates food prices could climb between 2.5% and 3.5% this year and between 3% and 4% next year. also of consequence to price-conscious energy consumers is how the price of food affects gasoline. the increasing price of ethanol has led some ethanol refineries to cut production which in turn increases what drivers pay at the pump. while many will suffer from inflated cost of staples they use every day, there are millions of americans who live in communities throughout this country that are economically dependent on agricultural activity. many of those living in sparsely populated regions work in businesses that drive on the income associated with agricultural sales. if anything positive is to come from this drought, my hope is that americans gain a renewed appreciation for all the

different ways agriculture productivity touches everyone's lives every day. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, h.r. 6233, the supplemental agricultural disaster assistance and, look, weather impacts our lives. i'm going to talk a little bit about climate change and some of the driving factors that are causing more severe weather conditions, be they droughts or floods. and, yes, you know, they affect businesses but the solution is not another republican big government bailout of yet another industry. the republicans have bailed out wall street. the republicans have bailed out the banks. now, the republicans are

seeking to bail out cows. yes, mr. speaker, another big government solution to another problem in part of their own creation by refusing to take up action on reducing our carbon emissions for climate change. look, where does this all end? when it's too cloudy, the solar industry might suffer. are we going to bail them out? when it's not windy enough the wind industry might suffer. are we going to bail them out? we have restaurants that have rooftop lounges. when it's too hot, less people go up to the rooftop lounges. we had a drought, we've had a drought in may and june and not enough people went to rooftop. i ask my colleague, ms. foxx, if there could be money for those rooftop lounges. i yield to the gentlelady. ms. foxx: i'm sorry. i don't understand the analogy that you're making. mr. polis: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. ok. so just a particular sector, maybe they have a lot of

lobbyists, maybe they are big special interests, they have their own cows. we are going to bail them out because the price of hay has gone up. that's what we're talking about today. we are talking about a closed rule, we are talking about a closed process. and this is nothing new, this lack of transparency, this limited debate pushing through a big republican government bailout on short notice without any giving members enough time to offer improvements to the bill, to change the bill. the first time that republicans and democrats even saw this bill was late tuesday night. and here we are on the floor of the house without a single hearing, without a single markup, pushing through this bill, shutting out opportunities for democrats or republicans to offer improvements to this bill. look, this is one of the worst and widest droughts we've seen in decades. i've seen that firsthand in colorado. we've had devastating fires this summer coupled with extreme heat in the west. now, this is indicative of the need to address the true culprit, chimet change. the evidence of recent droughts and heat waves are linked to

climate change is growing sutly and addresses the strong scientific consensus. now, we need the very conservation programs in the farm bill that are being gutted for this big government bailout of cows. the very programs cut by this bill are needed to help farmers and ranchers conserve soil, conserve water, to make their farmers, farms and ranches more resilient to the devastating impacts we see from climate change. and to mitigate that impact. now, look, american farmers, ranchers and environmentalists have all been waiting for months to see a farm bill come to the floor. and now to the disappointment of many, instead of a farm bill, which i understand for at least five weeks we are not going to see in the house of representatives, we're presented with a cow bailout, yet another republican big government bailout of an american industry. when the senate passed their farm bill over a month ago, the house majority couldn't even manage to bring a package to the floor for members to debate.

now, earlier this week, the republicans were looking at a one-year extension of the farm bill, and now decided to pull that one-year extension in favor of a cow bailout. let me once again stress that our severe concerns around droughts in the west and across the country are critical, but we mustn't gut programs that are some of the very programs that can help prevent the impact of droughts in seeking to bail out a particular industry, and when we look at drought and its funding, we need to have a bipartisan discussion of how we're going to structure it and where it's going to come from and why certain industries will be favored over others. why will there be a cow bailout instead of a rooftop terrace bailout? if you are going to have a big republican bailout, why don't you discuss who it goes to and not discuss who has the most lobbyists here or who gives the most campaign contributions? further, the conservation provisions cut by this bill do have strong bipartisan support in both chambers, both the senate and the house agriculture committees

understand the importance of the farm bill's conservation title. . many folks on both sides of the aisle agree that conservation practices are critical to protect our soil, the future production of our agriculture, water, and wildlife resources. that's yet another reason to consider a comprehensive bill to help ensure the strength of agriculture and protect american jobs rather than yet another republican bailout. instead of voting on the underlying bill, instead of even talking about a five-year extension of the agriculture bill, here we are today gutting critical programs with bipartisan support to bail out yet another industry with a centrally planned big government solution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, again we all grieve for the people in this country who are willing to

farm, who are willing to deal with the vicissitudes of mother nature and do their best to provide food and other products for the american people and people all around the world. we obviously don't have a lot of control over the weather. we have no control over the weather. we have no control over the climate basically. but we need to respond to our fellow human beings, our fellow americans when there is a need to do that. but the drought would not be as exacerbated and the effects would not be so exacerbated were it not for the overall job climate in this country. we are really suffering from the effects of our colleagues having been in charge of the congress for four years and an

administration that is totally out of touch with what is happening not only in this country but around the world in terms of our economic situation. we have record unemployment in this country, mr. speaker. we have record deficits. we have record debts. and it seems like everybody recognizes that except for our liberal colleagues across the aisle. we know there's something wrong with the american job climate in this country. whereas most people recognize the government should not wall off entrepreneurship with oppressive taxes or costly overcomplicated and unnecessarily burdensome regulatory apparatus, we have a liberal president who is so out of touch that he said, if you've got a business you didn't build that. somebody else made that happen. it would be bad enough if that was the first freudian slip

from liberal leaders here in washington, but this comes on the heels of both president obama and senate majority leader harry reid degreing on separate occasions that the private sector's doing just fine. apparently the two highest ranking democrats in the country are trying to convince themselves of an alternative reality where unemployment would no longer be a problem if only more americans worked for the government. fortunately we still have a lot of americans working out there trying to produce food for all of us. i recognize there are many government workers, teachers, police officers, firefighters, who provide critical services to this country. but to suggest that the unemployment problem in this country can be solved by continuing an unending, demomstraably failed liberal spending spree ignores the reality that is the private sector that generates the wealth which provides revenue

for government to work, through an increasing seizure of personal earnings as was displayed on the floor yesterday. liberal elites would have us all believe the only way to promote job growth is through a perpetual expansion of special handouts and concessions to government employee unions and politically favored industries. lest we forget that a centrally planned government sponsored green jobs solution was the only solution of the unemployment worries during the height of the resent recession. i want to remind my colleague of the solyndra loans and the many loans in that area that were made that have created crony capitalism in our country. the liberal democrats promise to solve these problems by ramming through a $1 trillion stimulus bill, financed exclusively by our posterity through deficit spending and quickly shifted their focus on

other crises vulnerable to exploitation such as a new $800 billion energy tax that sought to crush millions of jobs while sending hundreds of billions overseas, as well as the now infamous government takeover of health care, otherwise known as obamacare. we are actually fortunate for these striking statements which reveal a peek into the mystifying mindset of liberal elites who apparently believe that government dependence is a necessary condition for economic health. here's a news flash for the liberals who remain stubbornly unaware of the hardships that continue to grip americans. the results are in and everyone else knows that big government cannot simply prescribe economic prosperity and have it be so. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is

recognized. mr. polis: i listened very carefully -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i listened very carefully to the gentlelady from north carolina. i didn't hear her defend this bovine bailout that the republicans are proposing here today. i'm going to take a few minutes and address some of the mischaracterizations of the president of the united states that were in some of those comments. then i do want to bring it back to this big government bovine bailout the republicans are proposing here before us today. look, the president understands and i understand as somebody who started several businesses before i got here, created several hundred jobs, that of course i didn't do it alone. if we dew point have roads so employees could get to work, i wouldn't have been able to start a company or employees to get to work. if we didn't have schools to help prepare programmers and technicians, work in technology companies, companies that i started that hired programmers that were good-paying jobs, i wouldn't have been able to start a company. if we didn't have investors and

shareholders and the right level of securities regulation to prevent fraud and given the confidence to invest in companies i started, we wouldn't have capital formation and venture capital flowing to companies that needed it. if we didn't have the rule of law, we didn't fund our courts f. we didn't invest in basic research. if the government hadn't provided the funding to start the internet, i wouldn't have been able to start a single company. most of my friends who are entrepreneurs who started companies, who are corporate executives, agree. yes, the entrepreneur is critical. the president's jobs council recognizes that, and this president has been more friendly to entrepreneurship and business than any president in my lifetime. working you to ensure small businesses have the opportunity to succeed and grow and create jobs in the private sector. but without that basic infrastructure, we have to ask ourselves what separates the united states of america from a country like somalia or even a centrally planned country like

north korea. a lot separates us but a big part of that is this collaboration of a public sector role that enables entrepreneurship, enables success in the private sector, enables people to create fortunes, enables people to create jobs. that's the proper role of government. government shouldn't -- doesn't stand in the way of job creation. the government policy framework courts people can trust, roads for people to get to work, good public schools, good health care that's what enables success. as somebody who with some degree of success in the private sector before i got here, i agree completely with president obama that i couldn't have achieved that degree of success without the public infrastructure that played a role in allowing me and so many other entrepreneurs to succeed. now, moving back to the topic, the topic of the bovine bailout that the republicans have proposed here today, the gentlelady from north carolina said we have no control over

climate, basically. that was her quote that she just said. well, the vast majority of scientific consensus and agreement would indicate otherwise. now, we don't control weather. but climate is different than weather. yes, humans are contributing to climate change through carbon emissions and emissions of other greenhouse gases. the global climate has warmed. the average climate in colorado now is two to three degrees warmer than it was a century ago. it continues to accelerate. that doesn't cause a drought or flood in any one particular year, but it causes an increased incident of severe weather patterns. that cost us all money which is why we are even talking about a bovine bailout here today. i wish this had come to the floor upped an open process. i would have offered an

amendment just to talk about it to say why didn't you bailout rooftop restaurants, rooftop terraces. we are talking about the role of the government, the role of the private sector. i find it ironic to the point of being bizarre, almost like i'm in an alternative universe, that in the say vim remarks the gentlelady from north carolina railed against a president who dare to say that the public sector has a role in creating a landscape of private businesses to succeed, at the same time who is advocating for a bovine bailout of a particular industry. why this particular industry? why not rooftop terraces? why not solar if it's too cloudy? many, many, many businesses are affected by weather. retail stores are affected when it snows too much. should they be coming to washington clamoring for a bailout? look, both sides respect the role that private sector --

have government preempting the private sector by pick out a particular industry and elevating it above all others by giving it government subsidies and a big bailout, you are upsetting, you are upsetting the very market forces that the gentlelady from north carolina espoused support of in another context. this bill today gives us a terrible choice between drought assistance and conservation. now, both might be worthy, but this cuts the conservation programs used to fund this bill undermine the continuance of success of conservation programs that have bipartisan support and are helping farmers mitigate the impact of climate change in their businesses. there are so many other issues of relevance this house could be taking up. why aren't we talking about the estate tax which affects small farmers across this country? if we don't act by december 31, the estate tax will go to a 55%

tax above $1 million in assets, forcing many small farmers out of business and preventing them from being passed double play from one generation to the next. are we going to leave it to the last minute? is that a plan for the lame duck session? are the republicans scared to take on the estate tax before the election? i would advocate that we get down to work and start addressing issues that actually affect farmers. we should be voting to provide for the success of american agriculture, opening new markets, investing in basic research, helping to ensure that families have access to healthy food and nutrition. we need to make sure that farmers and rancherss' needs are addressed. if we don't address the fundamental drivers of climate change, we are overwhelm going to be faced with more and more difficulties, more and more requests from bailouts, maybe cows this time, may be chickens next time, corn the next time.

there's always going to be folks here in washington, hat in hand, coming to republicans saying give us a big government solution. and the question will come to this congress, are we going to do something about the underlying problem and whether that approach is through a cap and trade system or a carbon tax or incentives for renewables, what are we going to do to prevent farmers in this country from being driven out of business? this bill does nothing. sure, you can hand them government money, taxpayer money if that's the lack of regard you have for taxpayer money, you want to hand it out to whoever comes to town and begs for it, go right ahead -- i have some rooftop terrace restaurant owners in my district, give them some. that's not a solution. that's not a solution. that's what got us into this budget deficit, that's what got us into this hole. let's address the underlying issue of climate change in a scientific manner. have a real political

discussion that is necessary to negotiate a bipartisan solution that reduces our carbon emissions, reduces the impact of climate change on american farmers, reduces the incidents and severity of droughts across the united states of america, and also be the global leaders that we need to be on this critical issue. i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognize. ms. foxx: i'd like to inquire of my colleague if he has more speakers or if he's ready to close. mr. polis: i am prepared to close. mr. foxx: i would ask the gentleman to close and then i will close, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment which proposes that congress will not adjourn until the president signs middle class tax cut into law. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text they have amendment into the record

along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous quo. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. this will give us the opportunity to renew middle class tax cuts. when we talk about job creation, when we talk about growing our economy, the need to make sure we don't increase taxes on the middle class during a recession is something economists from both sides of the aisle agree on. something democrats agree on. i hope republicans agree too, that we should raise taxes on at least 98% of americans. let's have the discussion about the other 2%. but let's agree on what we agree on. let's not raise taxes on 98% of american families before congress goes on break, before the republicans send us all home to enjoy our summers, let's do something about jobs, let's do something about the economy, and let's demand that

we can give the middle class families across america the surety and security to know that they're not going to need to pay an additional $1,000 a year next year in taxes, they're not going to pay an additional $2,000 a year in taxes. i think it's critical and i call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can bring forward this critical amendment to provide the certainty that america needs to grow our economy and create jobs. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield pack the blons of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i would just say to my colleague across the aisle, i don't understand why the -- why our friends can't take yes for an answer. we want to give -- to extend the tax cuts that were begun over 10 years ago to anyone in

this country. we agree with that. that's what we're doing. we don't want to raise taxes on anyone. i'd also like to commend to my colleague across the aisle who represents a group of people who only ask for bipartisan cooperation when they're in the minority, a book by the australian geologist, ian policemener who wrote a book called "heaven and earth" which i think does do a scientific presentation of what is happening in terms of climate change. and the last, mr. speaker, i'd like to say that my colleague is trying to deal with a chicken and egg issue relative to infrastructure and how does infrastructure get funded. he wants to say that this all comes from the benevolent government he conveniently leaves out the fact that the government doesn't create wealth.

al our government does is spend wealth. and in many cases, waste the hard -- the fruits of hard working americans by doing things often very inefficiently. public infrastructure is funded by the taxes that we take away from hard working americans. entrepreneurs predating the -- predated the government in our country. we all know that the constitution was written to try to establish a limited government government in our country so that the entrepreneurial spirit could thrive as it has in most cases. my colleague talks about the government enabling entrepreneurs, excuse me. i don't believe the government does a lot to enable the private sector. what most people in the private

sector will tell you is just get the government out of my way. get the foot of the government off my neck. and i will do just fine. i know my colleague's been in the private sector and created a lot of wealth for himself and i applaud him for doing that, but most of the people that i know, mr. speaker, who are in the private sector, would simply say, the government isn't enabling me at all. leave me alone and ill do just fine. so -- mr. speaker, talk about taking the president's words out of context. as i think my colleague knows, when you put the president's words in context, they're even more disturbing than outside of context. i do believe that our president does believe that the government is the solution and most of us think the government

is the problem. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time, i urge my colleagues to support this rule and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on moving the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electron exvote on the question of adoption of the resolution. [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 236, the nays are 182. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i request a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: a roll call vote -- a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, 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 235, the nays will 131, the resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speakering i ask

unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill s. 739 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 7 p 9, an act to authorize the architect of the capitol to establish battery recharging stations for preist he owned vehicles under the jurisdiction of the senate at no net cost to the federal government. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lungren: i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 1402 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 449, h.r. 1402, this bill -- a bill to authorize the architect of the capitol to establish batly charging

stations for privately owned veebings in the parking areas under the jurisdiction of the house of representatives at no net cost to the federal government. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? seeing none, the clerk will report. mr. lungren: i have an amendment to the bill at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the committee amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. daniel lungren of california, amend section 1-e to read as follows, everings, reports, one, in general, not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the architect of the capitol shall sub milt a report on the financial administration and cost recovery of activities under this section. with respect to that fiscal year to the committee on house administration of the house of representatives. two, avoiding subs dis. a, determination, not later than three years after the date of enactment of this act and

every three years thereafter, the architect of the capitol shall submit a report to the committee on house administration of the house of representatives determining whether members, include anything delegate or resident commissioner to congress and covered employees using battery charging stations as authorized by this act are receiving a subsidy from the taxpayers. b, modification of rates and fees. if a derlings is made under -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? seeing none, the reading is dispensed with. the amendment is agreed to, the bill is engrossed, read a third time, pass and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask that before consideration of h.r.

6333. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6233, a bill to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance available for fiscal year 2012 with the cost of such assistance offset by changes to certain conservation programs and for other purposes. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 6233, which provides disaster aid to livestock and other producers.

i'm sure all of my colleagues are keenly aware of what's happening across this great country. a drought of epic proportion is gripping a large majority of the nation. and with it it is endangering vast areas of agricultural reproductive land. the map behind me illustrates just how widespread and how bad this drought really is. just yesterday in my home state of oklahoma we had temperatures topping out at 115 degrees. vast areas of productive pasture land are burned up and our ranchers are in dire need. but also let's be very clear why we are here on the floor today. in 2008 congress passed a farm bill that did not provide a final year for disaster assistance. i have heard people call this extending disaster assistance by a year. no. what we are doing is fixing a problem.

we are back filling a hole or fixing a deficiency. i'm not here to point fingers. i was elected to fix problems. we have a drought. we don't have a disaster program and i'm here to provide a solution. now, in past years we might just wave our hand and declare this emergency spending. but we tend not to do that anymore. thank goodness. so this bill pays for itself and not only does it pay for itself, it gives more than $250 million to deficit reduction. to me that sounds like fixing a problem. amazingly that's not the end of the story. some people do not like how we pay for the bill. i quite frankly i don't, either. i was the subcommittee chairman for conservation programs in 2002. when we gave an extra $17

billion to conservation programs. i'm a proponent of voluntary incentive-based conservation programs. but let me give you a little history on equip funding. 10 years ago in fiscal year 2002, we authorized $200 million in equip fund spending. in fiscal year 2009 we authorized $1,4340,000,000, and in fiscal year 2013, we authorized $1,750,000,000. yes, we are cutting real dollars. $350 million will not go to our farmers and ranchers to help comply with the enormous regulations facing them. but at the end of the day this will still be the largest amount of money ever spent on the equip program. seven times what we spent in 2002. the other offset is the c.s.p. program. which was vastly, i might note

for the record, improved in 2008. for those of you here in 2008 who voted for the farm bill, the c.s.p. program in the house bill had zero dollars, yes, zero dollars when it left the house. in the just-passed ag committee farm bill, we limit c.s.p. to nine million acres. i greatly respect the conservation community, but to hear them say we are destroying conservation programs could not be farther from the truth. you also hear people complain that this isn't the full farm bill. my priority remains to get a five-year farm bill on the books and to put those policies into place. but the most pressing brings before us -- pressing business before us today is to provide disaster assistance to those producers impacted by drought conditions who are currently exposed.

it is as simple as that. there is a problem out there. let's fix it. now let me address the farm bill that my colleagues seem to either love or hate or love to hate or hate to love. the bill is not perfect. no legislation is. now, we can spend our time trying to chip at the federal deficit $1 million at a time coming down to the floor on every appropriations bill or we can spend our time writing opinion pieces for the "wall street journal," or we can do something about it. the farm bill that passed out of my committee, the agriculture committee, saves $35 billion. let me repeat that. $35 billion. tell me another piece of legislation that has bipartisan support and a chance to pass the united states senate that

saves that much money. now, my friends on my side of the aisle will say we don't cut enough. while my friend on the other side of the aisle will say we cut too much. this is the perfect case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. i believe in the legislative process. i believe in letting the house work its will. we did it in the house agriculture committee and we can do it here, too. mr. speaker, let me say again i am committed to giving certainty to our farmers. i plan to work towards the goal that we get back in september but we are here today, today to fix a problem. let's do it without partisan bickering. there is a disaster happening out there. let's give the tools to our ranchers who are the most exposed. the bill is paid for. let's do what the american people sent us here to do,

that's fix problems. i urge my colleagues join me in voting for h.r. 6233. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson: today is the last session before the august recess and once again the house will adjourn without finishing its work. it's understandable nobody likes congress anymore. members will now have to explain to their constituents why the house did not eep try to consider a new five-year farm bill. frankly we are in this position because the house leadership has refused to bring the five-year farm bill to the floor. working in a bipartisan tradition on the agriculture committee, chairman lucas and i have craft add new five-year farm bill, making many important and needed reforms,

and i appreciate the efforts of the chairman in trying to enact a long-term policy. i know if he had his way we would have already passed the farm bill. the chairman and i were ready to mark up our bill at the end of june, but the republican leadership stepped in and said that they wanted us to consider the ag approps bill. so we were off for a couple weeks and then they didn't even bring the ag approps bill to the floor. the committee completed their work on july 11, passing a new bill, five - year -- five-year bill, 35-11 on a bipartisan vote. rather than bring this bill to the floor, the house is bringing bills that are going nowhere. i understand this is an election year and the majority wants to promote their message, and i have even voted for some of the but you think that after delaying us for two weeks the leadership could have found two days on the house calendar to consider the committee's farm

bill before the august recess. instead of bringing up the five - year farm bill, the republican leadership last week put forth a one-year farm bill extension hoping to delay action until the next congress with hopes that for some people they are going to dismantle the farm and food safety nets. fortunately under intense opposition from those in agriculture and others, the leadership had to pull the bill. so this brings us to today's consideration of h.r. 6233. this will provide some assistance to a few livestock producers affected by drought conditions across the country. primarily cattle and sheep, it is necessary and important. but this is not a comprehensive disaster package. dairy and specialty crop producers are going to be left hurting and there is no assistance for pork and poultry producers. the ag committee's farm bill not only includes the livestock provisions we are considering today, it also strengthens the

farm safety net with a wide ranging list of commodities. a five-year farm bill will do a better job of providing certainty for american agriculture and assistance during this period of drought. assistally, i have -- additionally, i have concerns about the cops vation cuts used to pay for this. i don't think counting -- cutting conservation programs to help disaster is the right approach f there was more time maybe we could find a better way to do this, but in the rush of putting this bill together, it didn't give us the necessary time to expell all of the -- explore all of the option. this is another reason i think bringing up a five-year bill makes more sense. it just mystifying to me why the house leaders can't take yes for an answer. i don't know how many times i have heard from the other side complaints about the senate not being able to get our bills

passed. we passed a lot of bills, most of which i supported, but over in the senate they never took them up. but now the senate has passed a bill, and this may be the only time they'll ever be able to get a farm bill through the senate. they passed it on a bipartisan basis. we passed it on a bipartisan basis. and now the leadership doesn't want to bring it up. i don't understand it. the farm economy is the one part of the economy that's actually working, doing well, it's been solid for the last few years. this is due in part i believe to the strong farm bill that we passed in 2008. natural disaster without the certainty of a five-year bill could jeopardize one of the bright spots we have in this economy. so with all that said i do recognize the effects the drought is having on our farmers and i will vote in favor of h.r. 6233. however this bill is a sad substitute for what is really needed, a long-term farm policy. so i'll tip to urge my

colleagues to bring up the house agriculture five-year farm bill and to assure that all producers will have necessary assistance during these times of disaster. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentlelady from south dakota, mrs. noem, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. noem: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, today i rise in support of h.r. 6233, the supplemental agriculture disaster assistance bill. as i look across the united states, many areas, including south dakota, are facing a serious drought. while many of our producers are covered by crop insurance, our livestock producers don't have the same safety net in place to weather this drought. that's why the livestock disaster programs are important. the last farm bill was in place for five years, while the last disaster programs were overwhelm put into place for four. that's why back in april i introduced legislation that

would re-authorize those programs and retroactively look at 2012 recognizing that it was a dereliction of our duty to make sure there was a safety net for our livestock producers as well. the 2008 farm bill did not extend that disaster coverage for this year but today we have the chance to make that right. this house should not go home while literally hanging our ranchers out to dry without a safety net to get through this drought. this need is immediate which is why we need to get this done. beyond this i'm going to continue to advocate for a five-year farm bill knowing it's the right thing to do. making sure that these programs are put into place for the lifetime of that farm bill so that we can avoid situations like this. the full five-year farm bill is the best way to get a long-term safety net for our livestock producers and commodity producers as well. but we can't wait another day with this drought going on without giving our ranchers some needed certainty. that's why i'm going to urge all of my colleagues to vote yes today and continue to work to get a five-year farm bill.

with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. speaker. i now pleased to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from iowa, one ever our ranking members, mr. boswell. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from iowa is recognized for four minutes. mr. boswell: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today on behalf of farmers and producers in iowa and in my district and across the country. i want to thank you, chairman lucas, and you, ranking member peterson, for your working together to try to resolve a need for the farm bill. as you know we are suffering because of the drought that continues to beat down on our land and livestock. while i'm not is00% pleased with this bill i will -- 100% pleased with this bill i will vote today to move it forward on behalf of my producers in need and those who have been grappling for hay and begun to liquidate cattle, i will support this bill. i do with a heavy heart. yet with the total optimism as

as farmer, as you are, mr. chairman and mr. partieson, i can tell you what our farmers and ranchers want. they want a farm bill a five-year farm bill that will provide long-term certainty in a changing market with an uncontrollable climate. it expands in like the -- like what we worked on in committee. they want to see a bill that will help them beyond 2012 and 2013, a bill that shows what he we know, not only must we react to this drought but we must prepare for the future. since july, 2011, i have expressed my support for a farm bill every chance i have had. i hope far conference the same way i hope for rain. however the republican leadership has taken ever chance they get to block debate on a five-year farm bill. it is clear this is in the a perfect bill but this happens

to be imperfect times an i believe we must respond to the drought that's impacting more than half of our nation as was depicted by the chairman a few moments ago. i have reservations regarding the cuts to conservation, particularly since conservation programs have been one option to help feed the cattle under the current drought. furthermore if we can bring the farp bill to the floor, we can respond to drought issue, we can debate issues that are critical to all americans and we can advance a bill that saves tens of billions of dollars. it is imperative that we pass a comprehensive, long-term farm bill. farmers and ranchers always face decisions that carry very serious financial implications. such as planting a crop, buying land, upgrating -- upgrading machinery, building a herd. we know if we don't have a farm bill there's a lot of ramifications on those out there that depend on the

agriculture economy for a lot more than producing cattle or corn or beans or wheat or whatever. the machinery is a big part of it. both the senate and house agriculture committees have produced reform-minded bipartisan bills that address many of the corps principles that are important such as crop insurance and ep suring strong agricultural research and development. we have heard time and again how uncertainty hinders job creation and economic growth. not passing a long-term job bill -- farm bill is bringing uncertainty to farmers across iowa, across theation and athis uncertainty must end. we must pass a five-year farm bill as soon as possible. therefore i remain hopeful, my eternal on optimism, as i stated, that after provide regular leaf to producers impacted by this drought that when we return from the august work period, speaker boehner will welcome us back with a farm bill on the floor. i yield back, i support this

resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. >> i yield to the gentleman from virginia, the gentleman, mr. goodlatte, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i want to thank chairman lucas for his leadership on this issue and ranking member peterson for his support of this effort to take action to help livestock produders being devastated by the drought. livestock farmers in the sixth district of virginia have been hit by the heat and the derecho that swept through the shenandoah valley that swept through last month. it was included in the last farm bill but did not last through it. not only doy provide relief but we pay for it. not only do we pay for it, we also achieve additional savings applied to the deficit. if every bill passed by the

congress reduced spending overall, we would be in much better fiscal condition in the frolvet. while the congress is taking an important first step in provide regular leaf for drought-stricken livestock farmers, the administration has at hand a tool they should use right now to provide drought relief as well. the owaugh ma administration has at its disposal an easy relief value to have provide drought relief, if only temporarily. a reduction in the government mapdate red newble fuel standards. i have long been a critic of the r.f.s. that has increased food and feed stocks being diverted into fuel, leading to diminished supplies for life stock and food producers. in fact, last year, 40% of the u.s. corn crop was used for ethanol production. there's no doubt this has driven up the price of corn which is hovering around $ a bushel. this drives up the cost of food. unfortunately, because of the

drought, we no longer have the luxury of being just worried about the price this drought is so devastating, we have to be increasingly worried we do not have a large enough corn supply to meet all of our competing demands. as we confront the reality of the tightening corn plies, there are real concerns about having enough to satisfy the r.f.s. and the needs of our food producers. we should not be in a position to choose between food and fuel. the government has chosen fuel over food with a policy that mandates a certain amount of corn production goke to ethanol production each year. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. it is a first start toward addressing a longer term problem that requires other action and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. costa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. costa: i rise to

reluctantly oppose this measure, not because drought relief isn't desperately needed but because we have a far better vehicle to do this in the form of a farm bill that chairman lucas and rarminging member peterson have worked tirelessly on behalf oproduce a good, good five-year farm policy on behalf of american agriculture. we need to do the job we were sent here to do. the drought relief package that we are voting on i believe is sadly more about giving the republican leadership relief when they go back to their districts in august than helping our nation's farmers, ramplers and dairy men. there's no denying that the action is needed to offer relief and we must do that. hopefully we'll come to an agreement in september. but the best action i believe is passing the bipartisan farm bill. if we're serious about helping agriculture make it through this drought, we would have

brought the bipartisan farm bill that came out of the united states senate, that passed the house agriculture committee by a vote of 35-11. following the regular order. the fact is, that instead of working on a conference committee as we should be doing at this time because we certainly have had enough time to do that, we are voting on a patchwork measure that in my opinion is more about politics than policy. and more likely than not will go nowhere in the united states senate. the dairy men, poultry producers and cattle feeders in my district have seen their feed prices skyrocket 30% to 35%. in the last six to eight weeks. yes we ought to provide relief through the renewable fuel standards. bankruptcies are increasing at an alarming rate among the dairy industry in california. when these businesses are

already struggling to stay afloat, they look to congress for leader ship. they look to congress for real action to produce a five-year farm bill. drought relief alone is not enough. lord nose we -- knows we dealt with a drought in california that was devastating in 2009 and 2010. passing a farm bill would give farmers, ranchers and dairymen the certainty that we need for the next five years in a part of the economy that has been doing generally speaking fairly well over the last several years. this includes long-term authority for disaster assistance, along wore support that the farm bill that helps them do their work in the conservation programs, in the equip programs, market access programs, in research that is vite vital to american agriculture. this bill sadly would pit disaster relief against conservation programs that farmers in my district rely on.

we need real solutions and the solution in my opinion is passing a farm bill, not halfhearted actions to prosect our political breasts. my colleagues, we have the time, let's go to a concerns committee and produce a bipartisan farm bill. it's traditionally the most bipartisan thing we do in this congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i wish to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas who has been dealing with drought issues for two years in a row now, mr. neugebauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. neugebauer: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. neugebauer: i rise in support of h.r. 6233. like the chairman and ranking member, i wish we were here debating the five-year farm bill that was passed out of the house ag committee which would have brought certainty and reform and saved american taxpayers over $35 billion. but the truth is, we have a drought across this country, over 75% of the areas that

produce agriculture in this country are reporting that either abnormally dry or worse conditions that doesn't just impact farmers and ranchers, mr. speaker. that impacts the americans that consume food products across this country, driving the cost of it up. so what we are doing today is doing something that we should have done when we wrote the previous farm bill and that is making sure that this program extended for an additional year and doing it in a way that's very fiscally responsible. we're going stive the american taxpayers about $256 million by making some shifts, moving some money around and making sure that these farmers and ranchers that are going through this tremendous drought have the resources they need to continue and also to help somewhat mitigate the increased cost of food for our country. mr. speaker, i hope that my colleagues will vote for this but also i hope that in the future, we'll be back down on this floor debating a very

important farm policy for american consumers and a more -- and american farmers and ranchers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. scott: i want to rise and commend our bipartisan leadership on this committee, chairman lucas and our ranking member, mr. peterson, for the hard work they've done and the leadership they have provided. we're faced with sort of a dilemma here. 24e right thing for us to do, that we should be doing right now that we should have been doing two or three days ago, was dealing with the five-year extension of the farm pill be. that is exactly what we need to be doing. it gives consistency. it will give uniformity. to our very vital food industry. and i might add, mr. speaker, that it is needed desperately at this time. but at the same time now, we are faced with a serious drought situation that is

plummeting our country -- that is pummeling our country they can likes of which we haven't seen in over 60 years. so the immediate and responsive thing to for us to do is respond to the drought crisis and pass this bill immediately and then move, resolve, that the firsted offer of business we will do when we return, is to take up the five-year farm bill. might i add, mr. speaker, while we have this disaster facing us, which is the crouth, we have another. and that is the food issue in this country. especially the issue of the snap program. and what we refer to as the food stamp program. mr. speaker, if we do not come together with a good conference committee report that looks at this issue with the necessity that the problem presents, under the current bill that's on the house side that was passed out of the agriculture committee, there will be, according to c.b.o., over

300,000 children who will go without food. it will be 155,000 veterans who will go without food. and nearly 200,000 of our seniors. so what i am saying is that we have not just the drought crisis, which we are going to respond to today. but we've got to come back and deal with this other crisis as we work to put together a very effective, five-year farm bill. with that, i thank the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i wish to recognize one of the most active member of the committee, my colleague from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, for two minutes. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. fortenberry: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the leader of the ag committee as well for his important leadership on this issue and many, many others. just like in nebraska, where we're hoping for rain, i'm hoping for a long-term farm bill. agriculture remains the only bright spot in the american

economy and it is critical that we build a multiyear farm bill that is built upon our strengths and provides certainty for our nation's agricultural producers. last month, with bipartisan support, the house agriculture committee, under chairman lucas' leadership, approved such a bill. the house should act on it before the current farm bill expires this september. while the five-year proposal is not perfect, it provides adequate protections for farmers and ranchers, it supports young and beginning farmers and embraces new market opportunities demest comply and internationally while also reducing spending. the proposal charts a new way forward for america's frmers and ranchers while respecting the federal government's severe budgetary constraints. mr. speaker, i agricultural policy to essential to america's food security. agriculture is also critical to our energy policy, environmental policy, even our national security policy. a new farm bill is imperative

for the future of the agriculture sector but also for the well being of our can'try. while i'm disappointed we are not acting on a long-term bill, it is important that we consider this legislation and i support its passage. drugget conditions are affecting many parts of the nation, this bill reinstates past legislative provisions, there's nothing new here and it gives relief to livestock producers. the measure is paid for and actually reduces spending while attempting to remain appropriately sensitive to important conservation programs. i urge its passage and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. conaway: i ask unanimous consent trox my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conaway: i rise in support of the farm bill. turn on your television or look on the front page of any newspaper and look at the details of the drought crippling our country today. as a west texan from cattle country, i know about droughts. the record breaking drought we faced in texas which is still being felt this year broke our heart especially those raising livestock and grow crops that feed and clothe our nation. is there good that can come out of a bad situation? maybe this is one of those times. i hope my colleagues might think a little bit about what our country's farmers and ranchers are going through right now and then imagine what many of them are going through without crop insurance which is the only reason we are not in here today debating a multibillion-dollar disaster

package. in other words, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. unfortunately, our livestock producers do not have crop insurance. they have to depend on disaster programs instead. regrettably, the disaster of this relief has expired in order tore them to receive relief and that's what this bill does. but the need for farm policy goes beyond addressing droughts and whatever else mother nature throws at us. it's responding to high foreign tariffs and subsidies which are breaking records. agriculture matters to our economy, to our trade, to our u.s. jobs and to our national security. importantly, the bill before us is fully paid for so it doesn't increase the deficit. we offset the cost from two conservation accounts that have never been spent on the conservation purposes that they were intended to use. it will have zero impact on conservation programs but nevertheless helping farmers and ranchers. although many of my colleagues say we should be passing a five-year farm bill instead of a disaster relief.

no one is more committed to enacting that long-term foreign policy than i am and continue to work that way. we passed a good one in the house of agriculture committee under the leadership of chairman lucas. but i want to -- but i think everyone appreciates the time this will take to get through conference to pass in this house, get to the conference is extensive and that's something our producers don't have today is time. i'm disappointed in some of our farm groups, the very same groups that assisted in tracking out this debate by trying to advance farm policy that only works for one region of the country or only for a couple of crops. our livestock producers need help now, mr. speaker, and that's what the house is about to do, i hope. is to always respond in times of natural disaster. i ask my colleagues to vote for this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota continue to reserve? mr. peterson: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i'd

like to yield to the gentleman from iowa who does very important work for agriculture on the appropriations committee, the gentleman, mr. latham, for two minutes, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. latham: i thank the speaker, thank the chairman for allowing me the time here to speak, and i rise in support today of h.r. 6233, the agricultural disaster assistance act. as we all know, farmers are really suffering, ranchers suffering from one of the worst in widespread disasters, droughts that have occurred in over -- in decades. and while over half of iowa has been designated as a disaster area because of the drought, farmers at home are really hurting and really feeling the pain of the drought. you know, while the forecasts are not good for the future as far as rain and the conditions

appear to be worsening every day out there, the temperatures near 100 degrees, we're at a critical point. congress can't legislate rain like we'd like to but we can certainly provide farmers the certainty that they need to address the disaster which is the worst in decades. unfortunately, mr. speaker, the livestock producers don't have any safety net to fall back on because the disaster programs expired last year. extending these programs to the end of fiscal year 2012 will give farmers the confidence and certainty to prepare for what's going to be a very difficult year. we're all pushing as hard as we can, doing everything possible, to get a new farm bill done, and i would encourage everyone to work to that end. in the meantime, this is what we have to do. we need to do this immediately to give certainty to those

livestock producers all over the country that are facing a very, very difficult situation with the drought. so again, mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to support h.r. 6233. let's move this today and get on to a new farm bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentlelady from missouri, a tireless voice for rural production and agriculture, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. emerson: the drought -- mrs. emerson: the drought poses a serious threat to every american family who plans on visiting the grocery store each year. american farmers and ranchers are on the ropes right now and this legislation is desperately needed. i can't tell how important the leadership and cooperation of chairman lucas and ranking member peterson has been on this issue because

statistically speaking, this is the worst drought since the 1950's. the situation for livestock is the worst since 1933. in southern missouri the drought is breaking the life's work of dairy farmers like stacy mcalister who wrote this to me, and i quote, i've been talking to some farmers and the feed prices are going to put us out of business. milk isn't coming up at all on price and feed is doubling in cases. the hay you could feed a hefer is at $200 a ton. i used to buy it for $30 a ton. i feel like my heart's in my stomach right now. this picture of his farm tells the heartbreaking story. according to stacey, even if you want to sell off part of your herd you're out of luck. there is no hope at the sale barn. there is about one penny of profit margin on the milk he's selling today. our response to this disaster

must begin with this effort to reinstate the emergency programs which were allowed to expire last october. we've paid for the re-authorization of these four programs in this legislation, and there's no reason not to renew them. these programs are a safety net for our livestock producers in freefall. they need this assistance and we need to give it to them or else risk losing the heart and soul of the agricultural backbone of this nation, the families who literally put food on our tables. i urge support for this legislation at a crucial hour of need for america's livestock producers and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota continue to reserve? mr. lucas: i have no additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i have no further speakers so i'll close at this point. you know, i'm going to support this bill. it's better than nothing, but it's not what we should be

doing. and people need to understand that this is not going to solve any problems for anybody over august other than political problem that they have where they can go home and can't point that anything didn't get done so they say they voted for a bill. but this bill is not going any place in the other body. they have a path through the other body a bipartisan bill that has a better disaster provision in it than what we're considering here today and their position is -- my position -- and that is we should be moving this bill and getting it enacted into law. so, you know, out of my friendship and respect for the chairman, i am supporting this bill, but i think he'll probably agree with me that we need to get this bill conferenced, we need to get it moved, we need to get it done and in place before september 30 so producers can get what they really need out of this

bill and that is a long-term policy that they know they can count on. so i yield back the balance of my time and ask my colleagues to support this legislation and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, my colleagues, i think the bill we address today is very straightforward. we're going to help a group of producers who when the old farm bill passed thought they had something they could depend on, but because of budget issues, the fifth year was not funded. we need to help them by fulfilling our commitment that what we said would be there would be there. we do it in a responsible way. we do it in a way that does not truly affect the dollars going to additional conservation programs based on recent years. but my colleague's right, this addresses an issue that matters to producers who for the last

10 months and for the next approximately two months are not able to use a program they thought would be there. but the underlying issue still is passing a comprehensive five-year farm bill, a farm bill that is such that all commodities and all regions can participate, a farm bill that will provide certainty, a farm bill that will make sure that the food and fiber that meet the needs of american consumers an, yes, consumers around the -- and, yes, consumers around the world, can be on the books. my friend and i have worked very hard, and we have made more progress this year than many pundits would have given us credit for, but we're not quite there yet. we may not exactly agree on every footstep to get there, but we agree we have to get there. let's take care of the folks who are hurting today and let's work to get that farm bill process completed.

with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote for -- to pass h.r. 6233 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate on the bill has expired. pursuant to house resolution 752 the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill 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: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 6233 is postponed. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek regnition? mr. dreier: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 747, i call up the bill h.r.

6169, to provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform. and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house calendar number 153, h.r. 6169, a bill texas texas -- a bill to provide for expedited consideration of a bill providing for comprehensive tax reform. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 747, the bill is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for three hours with one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on rules and two hours on the subject of reforming the internal revenue code of 1986 equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. after debate, it shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part a of house report 112-641, if offered by the gentleman from new york -- the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, or her designee. which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 0 minutes equally

divide and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. the chair would now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 6169. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. an exorbitant amount of ink has been spilled chronicling the many divisions here in the united states congress. i was just speaking a couple of hours ago in the well about the bipartisan consensus we were able to put together on the trade issue and i've got to say that the differences of opinions between and within the democratic and republican parties are extraordinarily well documented and too little attention is focused on the kind of bipartisanship that we've had on issues like the one we were debating earlier

today but having said that, even though it doesn't get much attention, there were a -- there are a number of issues, mr. speaker, on which we can all agree we have all agree, for example, that dramatic reform of our budget process is needed. we may diverge on the kinds of reforms and the manners in which they should be implemented but none of us looks at our skyrocketing deficit, anemic economic growth rate or persistent unemployment and thinks the status quo when it comes to the federal budget process is acceptable. i personally believe very strongly in the notion of our going to a two-year budget cycle so we can have both the appropriations committee and the other -- the authorizing committees spend time tissue expend time, number, and kevert -- and effort meeting its constitutional duty of oversight.

there are a wide range of views of how to deal with budget process reform but there's a consensus, democrats and republicans alike believe that it's necessary we all understand that budget channels must be addressed in two specific areas, both taxing and spending and we disagree greatly on the level and structure of both but we agree that it needs to be addressed. we know that meaningful budget reform must consist of both reform of the budget process itself as well as reform of the tax structure. mr. speaker, the exponential rise in spending in recent years infused our reform agenda with a great sense of urgency which is why we as republicans have focused so intently on reversing that trend and bringing about meaningful spending cuts. when i anouped i'd be leaving here at the end of this year, one of the things i had wanted to accomplish as i made the

choice, even though i wasn't originally planning to run again, this was two years ago, one of the things i said we had to do is reverse that trend we'd been on with an 82% increase in nondefense discretionary spending that we'd seen in years before. i'm happy to say we have been able to at least begin the process of reversing that trend. now we face a new level of urgency on the tax side of the equation. as we face the prospect of tax increases at the end of this this year while unemployment is stuck, as we've had pointed out to us by the chame of the wames committee, mr. camp, an excess of 8% that's gone on for 41 months and we got a report at the end of last month that our g.d.p. growth rate was revised down frrd from 1.5% to 1.9%. we all hope and pray that we will see improvement but even if we do see some improvement,

we know that the length of this challenging economic period is something that needs to be dealt with and one of the best ways to deal with it is meaningful tax reform. the legislation that we have before us, h.r. 6169, represents one-half of our two-pronged approach for preventing the enactment of catastrophic tax increases that would further paralyze our economy. the first step that we must take, mr. speaker, is to put a stop to the tax increases looming at the end of this year which is precisely what this institution, the house of representatives, did yesterday with the passage of h. reform 8. that bill will keep in place our current tax rates as we all know, for one additional year. that's an essential step. the president of the united states has said increasing taxes during difficult economic times is bad policy.

in fact, not just president obama but even the traditional keynesian economists will argue that the notion of increasing tacks in slow economic deprothe is a prescription to exacerbate the economic downturn. so it's very important that we do that. and again, that's one very important step. but on its own, it's just a stopgap solution. what we've done yesterday here for that one period of time. mr. speaker, the second part of our two-pronged approach creates a pathway to a long-term solution. this legislation puts in place a structure that will facilitate consideration and passage of meaningful, comprehensive tax reform. again, democrats and republicans alike regularly say that are for meaningful tax reform. we have talked from both sides of the aisle about it. what we are doing here with this compromise that we have is putting into place a structure that can lay the groundwork to have action taken, rather than

simply talk. mr. speaker, we all know that our tax code is not working for the american people. i think that it's another point on which we can all agree. i say to my friend from worcester, he knows very well that the tax code that we have today is not working. we believe on our side, the tax code that we have today, is not working. it's unfair, and it's byzantine in its complexity and we all know too that the tax code we have, mr. speaker, is clearly a drain on our economy. i'd like to make a couple of points on this. since 2001, that's basically a decade, plus a year. a little over a decade, there have been nearly 4,500 changes made to the u.s. tax code. within that decade, 4,500 changes made to the tax code. mr. speaker, that works out to one change a day. one change a day over that

10-year period of time. now the resulting complexity leaves nearly nine out of 10 families to seek assistance in filing their federal income taxes. at the same time, mr. speaker, the majority of small business owners, small business men and women in this country, 71%, 71% of all unincorporated businesses are forced to pay someone else to prepare their taxes. now dealing with the a tax code under these circumstances, forces individuals, families, and employers in this country to spend, are you ready for this, mr. speaker? over $6 billion -- $-- over 6 billion, are you ready for this? six billion hours, costing other $160 billion every single year to faithfully comply with a burdensome and complicated federal tax system. mr. speaker, i've talked to tax

attorneys, and accountants. tax attorneys and accountants. and they acknowledge that these wasted resources are a drain on economic growth and on our shared, bipartisan quest for job creation. furthermore, the current system is injecting a great deal of uncertainty in our economy. many of us like to point to the fact that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity. now, mr. speaker, let's look at the uncertainty that has existed other the past several years. tax rates have been scheduled to increase sharply in three of the last five years, requiring the enactment of repeated temporary extensions. what does that create for job creators, for investors out there? it creates uncertainty that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity. mr. speaker, as you know, dozens of other major tax provisions expyred in 2011 or are currently scheduled to

expire by the end of this year. , woing families and small business owners are not able to plan for the future or make rational business decisions, including hiring decisions, in this extraordinary environment of uncertainty. now, mr. speaker, all of these challenges argue forcefully for comprehensive reform. unfortunately, unfortunately, real results in this quest have prove sod far to be elusive. we are all aware of the chans of moving comprehensive legislation through the nat. here in the house, we have, as we all know a majoritytarian body. where a simple majority is able to work its will. the nature of the senate is fundamentally different, far flower -- slower, by design. frustrating though its inactions may be, i believe the framers of our constitution were right to structure these

two bodies differently. however, at times, at times throughout our nation's history, we've recognized the need to come together, the two institutions to come together to facilitate decisive action on critical matters and mr. speaker, that's exactly what we are doing here today. recognizing that the imperative for tax reform, something that has been discussed for literally decades, is going to be able to have something other than just talk, but action. and we're going to facilitate that with this effort here. this legislation lays oout a road map for reform and helps to ensure its timely consideration in both the house and the senate. it provides for consideration of a bill that was introduced by the chairman of the ways and means committee by april 30 of next year that incorporates five key pillars of comprehensive reform. first, the reform package should provide individual filers with much-needed clarity

and simplicity by con sol kating -- consolidating the current individual tax rates into no more than two brackets, 10% and 25%. second, it should spur job creation and growth by limbing the corporate tax rate to no more than 25%. again, focusing on the bipartisan nature of this, i've regularly said that i appreciate the fact that president obama, president obama, has come forward and called for a reduction in the top rate on corporations in this country. third, it should protect middle class families by repealing the alternative minimum tax. we all know how onerous that has been. we all know that more and more americans have unfortunately been drawn into this alternative minimum tax, which was designed to focus on very, very few people. fourth, mr. speaker, it should broaden the tax base to maintain revenue between 18% and 19% of our grose domestic

product. as we look at our economy, the goal of 18% to 19%. finally, one of the things again, i was talking about earlier, our global leadership role. we need to make sure we shift from a worldwide to a territorial system of taxation to have greater ekweyity, to allow for those who want to invest and participate to be able to do so, you know, on a global basis. and these are broad outlines. the tax reform agenda. they're an outline that i think will lay the groundwork for the details to be put into place. the legislation provides for expedited procedures in the house and senate so that comprehensive reform can receive its due consideration. mr. speaker, in the house, under this structure, any committee that receives a referral on the tax reform bill must report the legislation to the house within 20 calendar

days. failure to do so within that time period will result in an automatic discharge of that legislation. our rules committee will have 15 legislative days to provide a special order for consideration of the bill before the majority leader as automatically empowered to offer a motion to proceed with floor action. now mr. speaker, to underscore how important the right of every member of this institution is, after two days, any member of the house will be able to do so if action has not been taken by the majority leadership. these procedures will help to ensure that no committee or member has the power to prevent or indefinitely delay consideration of comprehensive tax reform. mr. speaker, in the senate, which is where ths this is needed because we have a rules committee here in the house, so it's not absolutely essential we do this. but in the senate, the bill, the tax reform bill must be referred to the committee on

finance, which will then have 15 calendar days to consider and report the bill before the legislation is automatically discharged. mr. speaker, in the senate, the majority leader can then offer a motion to proceed to the bill. after two more days, any senator will be empowered to do so. fen, ebb suring that people will not be able to stand in the way of moving ahead with tax reform. now that motion will not be debatable and cloture is not required before a vote on the motion to proceed. pacecally meaning, mr. speaker, that a super majority will not be necessary to allow to move ahead on the debate on tax reform in the senate. now, each amendment is limited to two hours of debate in the senate and cloture will not be required before votes on individual amendments. however, cloture, a very important power that does exist in the senate, cloture on the

underlying bill may still be required prior to the vote on passage of the bill. so what this does, mr. speaker, these procedures ensure timely consideration in the senate while maintaining that last hurdle of a potential cloture vote to final passage. i believe very strongly, mr. speaker, that this agreement strikes the right balance between facilitating action while preserving the very core nature of the senate process. the magnitude and urgency of our current economic challenges demand that we create this clear pathway to comprehensive tax reform. our proposal provides a real solution to the uncertainty, the complexity and the burdensome nature of our tax code. and mr. speaker, it unleashes a powerful source of new revenues. now, you know this very well,

mr. speaker. there is a common misperception out there, and you hear reported from people in the media -- and i don't believe it's normally meant as a prejor tif but they -- pregorative but they say, republicans don't want new revenues to the federal treasury. we hear this drumbeat over and over again. i'm here to say, mr. speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. republicans want new revenues to the federal treasury. we absolutely must find a way to bring greater revenue, you know, we got to find a way to bring revenue in the federal treasury. we decry the $15 trillion-plus national debt we have and the massive deficit spending. we got to have greater revenue to the federal treasury. where we diverge between the

two political parties, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is the manner in which we see these new revenues actually achieved. rather than raising tax rates on any one set of individuals or businesses, we want to raise revenues through greater gross domestic product growth. we want to expand the overall size of our economy, creating opportunity for all americans. we've done this as a nation many times in the past. i always like to point to president john f. kennedy who pioneered this approach by cutting marginal tax rates and growing revenues as a result. now, i acknowledge the marginal tax rates when president kennedy did this were significantly higher than they are today when he was able to reduce marginal rates for individuals and reducing capital gains. but we still can put in a place pro-growth tax policy. mr. speaker, president reagan did the same thing 20 years

after john f. kennedy did it, and we all know what happened. we all know what happened, mr. speaker, when president reagan, with the support of many democrats through what was known as the tax package. it was a democrat and republican. a then-democrat and republican. mr. hans has since seen the light and became a republican. but he was a democrat at the time. he brought about may nor marginal rate reduction. and what did that do? during the decade of the 1980's, contrary to reports, we saw a nearly doubling, a double to the federal treasury. better than when we saw when kennedy cut. we want to expand the federal treasury by implementing pro-growth tax reform. now, we all know that our friends on the other side of

the aisle do take a different point of view. i wish that they would follow president kennedy's great example on this, but unfortunately the leadership on the other side of the aisle does take a different point of view which brings me to the final point on which we all agree. the democratic approach to the considerable economic challenge we face is to raise taxes. i mean, we all agree that that's what our friends on the other side of the aisle are arguing. i've been watching television ads with president obama on there talking about increasing taxes on working americans. yes, they're in the upper income, but these are people who are creating jobs and investing and he wants to increase the tax burden on those people. they readily admit -- they readily admit that their solution is to allow a large portion of the tax increases to proceed. they want the tax increases that are scheduled to go into

place in january to succeed. so i come back to my point to the fact that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity and the statements of president barack obama, who as we all know in the past agreed to an extension of these tax cuts to keep the economy growing, and we also know the keynesian economists said increasing taxes during a slow economy is a prescription for disaster. and so this is where the disagreement lies. democrats and republicans alike recognize that democrats want to increase marnel national tax rates, -- marginal tax rates and we as republicans want to grow the economy to enhance the flow of revenues to the federal treasury. so, mr. speaker, we as republicans argue that making a tax code more burdensome for some and more complicated for all is not the solution. raising taxes when our economy

and our job market are flagging is not the solution. the only way for us to create opportunity for all americans is to reignite our engines of economic growth, and we cannot spark new growth without addressing both the immediate crisis of impending tax increases and the long-term need for comprehensive tax reform. and so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this very, very critical legislation and with that reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman -- i want to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, it is true that democrats believe that we need comprehensive tax reform. there's no doubt about that. but i want to say to my friend, my good friend from california when he used the words like bipartisan, consensus and

compromise in the context of describing this piece of legislation, i have to respectfully disagree with him. it couldn't be farther from the truth. those words do not apply to what we're talking about here today. this is a very, very partisan bill. this bill was referred exclusively to the rules committee. i'm a member of the rules committee. i don't recall the gentleman ever reaching out and asking my opinion on what a bill like this should be about. perhaps my invitation to join the discussion was lost in the mail. if that's the case i certainly, you know, will give the gentleman a pass, but i'm willing to bet that ranking member slaughter was never consulted. mr. hastings from florida was never consulted. mr. polis from colorado was never consulted. in fact, we -- this bill was given to us less than 48 hours before we considered it in the house rules committee. and every single amendment,

every single amendment that democrats had to try to influence this bill was defeated on a strictly partisan vote. every single one of them. so this is not in any way, shape or form about bipartisanship or consensus or compromise. this is a very partisan bill, and i regret that very much because we do need tax reform in this country, but this approach of shutting out the minority party entirely i think is the wrong way to go. so, mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this very partisan republican bill. and actually i use the term bill very loosely here, because this really isn't much of a bill. it's a press release mass can raiding as -- masquerading as a piece of legislation. it would create expedited procedures for the republican version of comprehensive tax

reform. there is criteria that tax reform has to meet in order to get fast track protection in the house and senate. it's sort of like reconciliation but our republican friend don't want to admit. there are two big problems with the republican approach. first, there is nothing, nothing in this bill that would prevent, quote, comprehensive tax reform, unquote, to turn medicare into a voucher program or eliminate altogether. repeal patient protections under the affordable care act. yes, they could do that do. eliminate the department of education. sure, that gets special treatment. or they might want to privatize social security. one of their oldies but goodies. it is absolutely outrageous. the second big problem is that under this bill the republican author of the tax passage as chairman of the ways and means and the person who was supposed to certify the package is eligible for exat the dieded

process as chair of the joint committee on taxation can and likely will be the very same person, the very same person. now i like chairman camp. i think he's a terrific guy but i don't think he needs to serve as prosecutor, judge and jury on the issue of tax reform. you don't put the fox in charge of guarding the hen house. but this debate is much more than the terrible process outlined in this bill. this debate is about priorities. the choices here are very simple and the contrasts are very clear. democrats want to give every american family a tax break. on the first $250,000 of income, everybody, including donald trump, including all those friends of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who give millions and millions to super p.a.c.'s, they get a tax break on the first $250,000 of their income, but the problem is the republican approach to tax reform is to

raise taxes on millions of american middle-class families. raise them. democrats want the wealthy to keep some of their tax cuts, but we believe during this time of budgetary crisis that we all should sacrifice, including the millionaires and billionaires. and so we're asking them to contribute just a little bit. everybody else is contributing. they should too. but republicans say, no, they want to increase -- they want to protect those tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals and increase the deficit. and just in order to protect again the 2% wealthiest americans in this country. democrats want to pass a tax cut bill that has already passed the senate. that's the one i was talking about. the one that gives everybody a tax break on the first $250,000 of their income. and we want to pass that and it could be on the president's desk at the end of the week an we could actually have done something for the american

people. but republicans want to hold that bill hostage. you know, there's an old saying, you don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. i mean, it seems to me that, again, if i'm to believe the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle that there's no objection to protecting tax breaks on the first $250,000 of someone's income. if there is consensus on that, then we ought to get that done and then we could have this -- the other fight about whether or not donald trump and sheldon adelstein and those other guys can get tax breaks. we can actually do something before we recess for august that would actually help people in this country. but what a radical idea in this republican congress, to do something to help somebody, to help middle-income families. we could do that, but they are saying no. we all agree that the economy continues to struggle. of course, the republican strategy of rejecting president obama's jobs bill and

manufacturing a debt ceiling crisis, that contributed greatly to this economic crisis that we're in right now. now, my republican friends like to talk about tough choices, about how there needs to be sacrifice in order to get our fiscal house in order. but why is it time and time and time again that their tough choices always seem to hurt the most vulnerable americans? why does their idea of sacrifice always mean poor people getting less food or students getting less help with their tuition or states getting less help with their roads and their bridges? you know, it takes no political courage, zero, to say to the very wealthy, you could keep all of your tax cuts, all of your special tax breaks and protect all those loopholes, takes no courage, takes no guts to help out millionaire hedge fund traders who write giant checks to shadowing super p.a.c.'s.

this debate should be about standing with the middle class instead of always standing with the millionaires and billionaires. if my republican friends were so certain about the rightness of their priorities, they would put the so-called principles in this bill into legislative language and bring it to the floor. i think the american people would cringe once they saw those -- what those numbers would mean, but they have the ability to do that. you know, i should remind them that -- and i regret this very much, but they're in charge. they run the house right now. you know, the chairman of the ways and means committee could come up with a comprehensive tax reform bill. he could any time, the republicans have been in control, and brought it to the floor. my friends on the other side have enough votes to pass anything. they could have done it, but i think if they did, and it was clear what the priorities of this republican majority really were, and it was there in print, i think the american