chairman. host: bloomberg business week cover story, why jamie dimon is water street's indispensable man. nick summers, we appreciate your time. guest: thanks for having me. of theext, live coverage house, a vote today on the keystone xl pipeline. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] the speaker pro tempore: the use will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., may 22, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable tom mcclintock to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, or five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, peace officers are the ones who diligently protect and serve the people. they are the first to respond to the call for help in time of trouble. they go after the bad guys and provide us safe communities to live in. some take extra jobs to make ends meet. they wear the badge of commitment over their heart.

sheriffs' departments in texas where a star over their heart. today in houston, texas, they have placed a black band across their badges in honor of one of the fallen among their number. sergeant duane polk, 47, of the harris county sheriff's department, was killed about 3:00 a.m. sunday morning. he was headed home in his uniform after working a contract assignment. sergeant polk grew up in houston, texas, with his three sisters and two brothers. his mother always encouraged him and the other kids to read the bible. he had worked for the sheriff for 16 years. sheriff garcia said it was tough talking to his son, but he will have many big brothers in the sheriff's department. as sergeant polk was driving home that sunday morning, his puckup truck was struck by one who ran a red light, never slowed down and crashed into polk. polk was killed.

the other driver was drunk and had minor injuries. he was charged with intoxication manslaughter and is in jail. he had been convicted last year for drunk driving and unlawfully carrying a pistol. he went to jail for 30 days for that offense. news reports also say he was in the country illegally. last weekend when polk was being killed in texas, america's families of peace officers killed in the line of duty last year were here in d.c. their fallen were honored by thousands of other officers from america on the west side of this capitol. next year about this time, sergeant duane polk of harris county, texas, and the sheriff's department will be remembered here as his name is read from the roll call of the dead. citizens should appreciate the service of officers like sergeant polk. they do the work most of us would never do. they go into the worst places of our cities to root out evil

that lives among us. they sacrifice for us. the least we can do is appreciate them for wearing the star or the badge over their heart protecting the rest of us. they are the only thing that stands between us and the lawless. they are among the best we have . so we mourn for the loss of sergeant polk while thanking the good lord such men as him ever lived. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . hoyer: mr. speaker, as the sequester's effects continue to place our economy and national security at risk, the news that 650,000 civilian defense workers will be forced to take unpaid leave ought to alarm all americans who are concerned about our military readiness

and national security. these furloughs will affect thousands who live in my district and thousands who live in the districts of every member here. after congress voted earlier this month to end furloughs for air traffic controllers that had caused flight delays, one would have expected there would be an unanimous outcry for the rest of the sequester to be replaced. the best way to do that, of course, mr. speaker, is with a big and balanced agreement. but instead republicans in this house don't seem interested. it's not just democrats who are taken aback by their silence. republican senator and former presidential nominee of the republican party, john mccain, said on may 14, just a few days ago, about these furloughs for civilian defense employees, and i quote, nobody seems to care. it's amazing. it's one of the most amazing things i have seen in the years i've senate.

so said john mccain. democrats continue to call for the sequester to be replaced with a balanced approach to deficits that restores fiscal discipline, preserves our ability to pay for our military readiness and invest in a strong economy. he sequester on its own is not a solution. it's been, however, republican policy all along that's now in effect because they refuse to compromise in a bipartisan way to find a real solution. if you go back to july of 2011 and look at the republican offer of the cut, cap and balance bill, you will see that sequestration is in there. it is the alternative that republicans put forth as policy. 229 republicans voted for had a policy. well, they got what they wanted.

on april 27, the report in "the hill" said, and i quote, g.o.p. leaders in the house said they have no plans to bring up fraud legislation to replace sequestration, according to a leadership aide. men and women who are hard at work supporting our troops and protecting our nation are said to be furloughed for 11 days this year. an unfair, unplanned, undeserved pay cut while frankly the leadership of this house sits idly by and takes mo action to replace the squest -- no action to replace the sequester. the same thing that goes to the terrible effects that sequestration could have. 70,000 eligible children kicked off head start. 10,000 teachers' jobs at risk. retirement disability claims delayed. four million fewer meals on wheels for seniors. 125,000 less rental assistance

vouchers. 2,100 fewer food safety inspectors. for a those on the floor vote, most of us wouldn't vote for them, but that's what's happening as a result of the sequester. we know, mr. speaker, what the republican plan is for these defense cuts. to pass appropriation bills in the house that shift those cuts so that domestic programs, those education, head start, food safety that i've just mentioned, basic biomedical research are cut more deeply than the parties agreed to in the budget control act in 2011. we also understand, mr. speaker, and everyone recognizes that the domestic cuts republicans want to impose instead couldn't even pass the house, let alone make it through the senate or survive a certain veto. so, again, mr. speaker, we have only one reasonable option before us.

manage to work together to set our differents aside for the good of our country and to achieve real compromise. a big, balanced, bipartisan approach that replaces the entire sequester is the only way to protect our defense workers against these furloughs and end the uncertainty that they and their families are facing. let's have a vote, mr. speaker, on a balanced alternative. not another vote to repeal health care reform that's not going anyplace. not another vote to roll back the rights of workers. not another vote to strip away safety standards or environmental protections. let's stop wasting time and get to work on the most pressing challenge we face and make the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal stability and invest in our economy and in our national security and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson, for five minutes. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i find it irresponsible if i didn't mention it. it sounds like the light bulb has come on for my colleague from maryland. he says we need to replace the sequester. i only wish that light bulb had come on when the house passed under republican leadership twice in the 112th congress to replace the sequester are responsible spending cuts. so it looks like here we are again. and you know the recent admission by the i.r.s. that it used its considerable authority and resources to target certain americans because of their political affiliation should serve as an urgent warning to all americans. the federal government is getting too large and has too much control. the simple truth is that when the government expands,

personal liberty contracts. i found it both stunning and revealing when former advisor to president obama, david axelrod, said this. and i quote, part of being president is there's so much beneath you that you can't know because the government is so vast. for a member of this president's inner circle to admit that the federal government is so massive that it's essentially not practical for our chief executive to hold it accountable or for the president to effectively manage it is simply stunning. it also begs the question, if it is no longer possible for the president of the united states to oversee all of the federal agencies assigned to him and to hold them accountable, then who is? is anyone? as the i.r.s. scandal -- as if the i.r.s. scandal wasn't bad enough, there are other troubling stories that have arisen in the last few weeks.

the associated press has said that the administration monitored hundreds of private phone calls between reporters. is this really freedom of the press? then, refined that talking points given to the administration to tell the american people what happened on that faithful night in benghazi were twisted, cut, turned and edited to the point that the truth wound up on the cutting room floor of the white house or the state department or the c.i.a. or the department of defense. i actually -- we don't even really know but we're going to find out. but we do know one troubling thing. the federal government with the i.r.s. leading the way is about to become exponentially larger and more powerful because it's about to get into the health care business. obamacare will be fully implemented by next january,

and according to the treasury department's inspector general, the new health care law is the largest set of new tax law changes in 20 years. the i.r.s. will be hiring more bureaucrats to make sure americans comply with these new laws and to oversee the flood of new personal information the federal government will be collecting on the american people. for example, under obamacare, the federal government will require insurance companies to report to the i.r.s. the name, the address, the identification number and type of policy purchased by every customer. and if that weren't enough, the i.r.s. will also require insurance companies to detail whether or not individuals purchased government-approved health care to ensure compliance with obamacare's individual mandate. and just yesterday, lois lerner, head of the i.r.s.'s exempt organization's division, announced that she would be

invoking the fifth amendment to protect herself from self-incrimination. the truth is that our federal government is too big, too intrusive and it's seeping into every aspect of our lives. it's taking away personal freedoms and collecting personal data. it has shown it can be manipulated to punish fellow americans for their political beliefs all at the expense of the american taxpayer. and let me be clear. i'm not a no regulation guy. we need commonsense regulations to ensure that our food is safe, our air and water are clean, our transportation is sound and that our financial transactions are secure, among other things. however, this administration has issued more than 10,000 regulations to date, including 106 major new regulations imposing $46 billion in additional costs that's being

paid for by the american people. this means more rules, more bureaucrats, bigger government and less freedom. most troubling to me is that we were founded as a constitutional republic to be gomped by the rule of law -- governed by the rule of law. but there are those that we should be governed by a law of rules, whether his president or his bureaucratic agencies make up the rules. this breaks our traditions made by our founding fathers. they put in trust to elect the representatives to make the laws necessary to allow americans to prosper. mr. speaker, i ask the american people to consider america's government's getting too big and too out of control. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. miller, for five minutes. without objection. .

mr. miller: in the wake of the horrific tragedy in newtown, connecticut, where 20 children were senselessly murdered, the issue of keeping children safe have been on the minds of all americans. since this tragedy occurred in a school, districts have focused on haven't crime that occurs in the school building it self. protecting children will require much more than preventing outside intruder from committing acts of violence or a good emergency response plan to deal with the event. we need to recognize the fear of violence against children does not begin or end at the schoolhouse door. that's why i devoted this month to introduce legislation that focuses on the safety needs of children as a national priority. first i introduce legislation to establish a minimum safety standards to prevent abusive seclusion or restrained practices in schools across the country. in keeping all students safe, it would protect school children

from inappropriate uses of seclusion and restrained. provide the school personnel with the necessary tools and support to ensure the safety of all students and personnel. these practices are at best cruel and worst deadly. they continue to be used on children across the country. in indiana an 8-year-old girl with down syndrome had her shoes duct taped to her ankles because she refused to put them on. in north carolina a 14-year-old boy with traumatic brain injury was confined inside a cardboard box as a form of time-out. in some cases children have die interested improper restraints and seclusion. my bill also would stop these abusive practices, but safety shouldn't stop at the schoolhouse door. the investigations conducted by the government accountability twoud, my request in 2007, twathe, required boarding schools, wilderness camps, and behavior modification facilities

are not always run in a state manner. recently in the tampa bay times problems of abuse and neglect continue with the stories of children being abused bloody, and choked into unconsciousness at these programs all in the name of discipline. more horrific stories of child abuse, including death in some cases, have been documented in seven states residential programs in the past two years. last week i introduced the stop child abuse and residential programs for teens act. a bill that would set basic health and safety standards that states would need to adopt to enforce and protect teens from physical, mental, and sexual abuse in these programs. it would also create easily accessible information for parents about the safety record of the programs so that parents can make sound decisions about what they want -- if they want their child there. no one disputes that our schools and residential programs must be a safe place for children where they can focus on improving their lives not living in fear. some states have made progress developing policies to protect

children from acts of violence, abuse, and neglect, a patchwork of protections is not acceptable when it comes to our nation's children. we cannot sit idly by as incidents of children being abused or killed continues to occur. today i'm introducing legislation to prevent registered sex offenders and criminals convicted of crimes against children from working in schools. this act would require public schools to conduct comprehensive background checks on any employee using state, criminal, or child abuse registries and f.b.i. fingerprint data base. it would also prohibit school districts from hiring or retaining anyone who has been convicted of verne haven't crimes including crimes against children, crimes involving rape or sexual assault or child pornography. keeping our children safe isn't a partisan issue. it's a moral obligation. this congress must do more to protect our children. one way congress can immediately help to ensure that students and schools have the support needed

to address all aspects of violence is through the re-authorization, the elementary, secondary education act. through a bipartisan rewrite of the nation's education law, we can ensure the schools and students have the necessary support to provide key nonacademic services essential to students to succeed in a healthy learning environment. the -- in the elementary, secondary education act, democrats will be fighting for these critical services, including other measures to promote safety such as school services for violent prevention activities, harassment prevngs, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, and programs to prepare for and to respond to national disasters and emergencies in our school. mr. speaker, my last -- on my last point my thoughts continue to be with the victims and families of all those hop suffered and continue to suffer from the terrible tragedy that took place in oklahoma earlier this week. we are just amazed and honored all of the efforts that the school staff, teachers, and parents in trying to get children out of harm's way and

our hearts go out to those who were unsuccessful. i hope the congress can support these communities and healing in every possible way. as always keeping kids safe requires coordinated efforts of children, principals, superintendents, community partners and parents. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north dakota, mr. withoutfor five minutes objection. mr. cramer: mr. speaker, this week the house of representatives will vote on an important piece of legislation that should be unnecessary. due to the president's objection at the insistence of hollywood and the e.p.a., a critical piece of north america's energy security puzzle languishes on the desk in the oval office. for thousands ever unemployed workers collect government benefits instead of a paycheck. that is why i co-sponsored and

am doing all i can to pass h.r. 3, the keystone pipeline northern route act, a bill that renders the northern route of the pipeline approved for construction, eliminating the need for presidential permit. as vast reserves of oil are discovered and new technologies unlocked, energy security in this decade is well within our reach. the amount of oil that could be flowing to u.s. refineries on the keystone x.l. represents nearly 50% of the oil that we currently import from the middle east. mr. speaker, in addition to sitting on two of the subcommittee's that held hearings on this legislation, i have a long history of involvement with transcanada and the keystone pipeline and a former environmental regulator in north dakota. from 2003 until my election to congress last year, i carried the pipeline portfolio as one of three members of the north dakota public service commission. as you might imagine oil and gas pipeline construction business is robust in my state as the shale development has elevated north dakota to the position of

the number two producing state in the country. one of the pipeline's recited was the original transcanada keystone pipeline. it carries over 500,000 barrels of crude from the western canadian sendmentary basin in alberta to u.s. refineries in illinois and oklahoma. the first 217 miles of this pipeline actually run through our state. it yosses the border in cavalier county, north dakota, and runs through seven more counties, crossing 600 landowners land, two scenics rivers, and includes five pumping stations. while not universally loved, can i tell you that not a single inch of this line in north dakota required condemnation proceedings not because that was such a great regulator but because i represent such great citizens. our citizens understand the value of energy security and the jobs that energy development creates. that same sentiment exists in our nation today. the environmental safeguards we demanded on the keystone are

rigorous and appropriate. they have been tested and they work. i toured the keystone during construction, and met many of the men and women who were grateful for the good-paying jobs that built the line, and many other local restaurant and hotel proprietors, retailers, subcontractors who would love to have the work and business. the local officials and school administrators are grateful for the tax revenue that would not be there but for the keystone pipeline. and of course the tax relief that provides local farmers in addition to the easement payments are a blessing. mr. speaker, i have studied hundreds maybe thousands of miles that operate safely and efficiently throughout north dakota but not nearly as safe as the keystone x.l. i hear my colleagues claim it only helps canada and also claim that carbon footprint is too freight. the fact of the matter is the keystone has already signed up over 60,000 barrels of north

dakota crude and has capacity for at least 100,000 barrels. today 71% of north dakota's crude is shipped by rail. i have nothing against trains. but rail costs more and not as safe as pipelines and requires trucks to get the oil to the train. according to the director of the department of mineral resource, it will cause two things to happen, 300 to 500 truckloads will be taken off the high waist and one to two fewer trains leading the state. calculates the greenhouse gas emission from rail are 1.8 times and trucks 2.9 times greater than the emotion from the pipeline and spills from truck transportation occur at three to four times of the rate of spills from pipelines. approval of the keystone will result in 450,000 to 950,000 kilograms per day less of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as significant decreases in dust and 60 to 80 fewer spills per year.

north dakota officials also expect highway fatalities will be reduced by three to six per year and injury crashes by 85 to 150 annually if the keystone x.l. is built. mr. speaker, america's national security and america's economic security are tied directly to america's energy security. and the keystone x.l. pipeline is a critical weapon in that security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, i rise today for the 12th time this year to talk about the need to end hunger now. i'm honored to serve on the house agriculture committee and last week the committee held a markup on h.r. 1947, the farm bill. i believe we need a farm bill that constains smart, forward thinking policy, a farm bill that ensures that farmers are able to make a living.

a farm bill that benefits the american economy. a farm bill that ensures that the good -- food grown in america makes it to the plates of every american. and a farm bill that isn't ripe with fraud, waste, and abuse. the good news, mr. speaker, is that a component of that smart forward thinking policy already exists. it's called snap. this program ensures that 47 million people out of the 50 million hungry in this country are able to put at least some food on their tables when they otherwise couldn't do so. this program ensures that the food grown on our farms makes it to every american's stable, not just the healthy -- wealthy few. it provides a catalyst because the snap benefit is spent in our local groceries stores and farmers markets, generating jobs and revenue. every snap dollar results in $1.72 in economic activity. an amazing return on our investment. snap has one of the lowest error rates of any other federal

program. but h.r. 1947 would undermine all of this. it cuts $20.5 billion from the program. that cut means that two million people would be kicked off of snap entirely. it means that 210,000 kids would be kicked off the free school meal program. it means that 850,000 people will see their snap benefits cut by $90 a month. this is on top of a $25 a month cut for family of four that will already take effect in november no matter what happens in the farm bill. there was a time not so long ago when solving the problem of huger in america was a -- hunger in america was a bipartisan priority. former senators mcgovern and dole worked tirelessly in the 1970's to make america hunger free. we nearly eradicated hunger altogether. i ask unanimous consent to insert at the end of my remarks an op-ed from yesterday's "new york times" highlighting this work. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: the problem today

it's become far too fashionable in this house of representatives to beat up on the poor. in fact, there is now a bipartisan effort to cut hunger programs. i'm sad to say even some democrats are willing to support this farm bill even with these terrible snap cuts. instead of moving forward together, we are moving backward. mr. speaker, the farm bill with these snap cuts is a bad piece of legislation, it's bad policy, deserves to be defeated. whatever good may be in this bill from increased access to organic foods, to more humane treatment for animals, to increase job creation and agriculture, it is not an understatement to say that this bill will make hunger worse in america. for the life of me i do not understand why we should be forced to choose between cutting access to food and providing jobs for our ailing economy. we can and we should achieve the joint mission of ending hunger now and creating jobs together. they are very much connected and should not be pitted against each other. but that's exactly what the farm bill would do to the tune of

$20.5 billion. we should end hunger now. not make hunger worse. we need a comprehensive effort to end hunger now. we need presidential leadership. we need a white house conference on food even nutrition. and we need in congress to determine to address hunger in america and bring it to an end, not make it worse. hunger in america is a political condition. and nothing demonstrates that more than this farm bill. we have enough food to end hunger now. we just don't have the political will to do so. this effort to cut snap to make hunger worse must not stand. i hope my colleagues will join me in restoring these senseless cuts. should that effort fail, i hope my colleagues would join me in defeating the farm bill when it is considered on the house floor. we can and we must do better. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. wagner, for five minutes. mrs. wagner: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. wagner: mr. speaker, we've

heard again and again that we must embase an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to eeting and supplying our country's energy needs. at the end of the day that has simply turned into a none of the above strategy. mr. speaker, this is not complicated. approving the keystone x.l. is the first and easiest step that we can take in order to embrace our energy future immediately, to build jobs and to gain economic security. the application to build the keystone x.l. pipeline has been gaining dust at the u.s. state department for more than four years, awaiting approval and each subsequent day that decision isn't made, further denying this country of greater energy security and the creation of over half a million jobs by 2035. by the state department's own calculation, the number of potential jobs through construction alone stands at over 42,000.

with the unemployment rate being above 7.5% for four of the years that the presidential permit has been pending, this just economically is irresponsible. with over 15,500 pages already produced in its national environmental policy act review over the past 4 1/2 years, under the president's schedule, we must still wait yet another report and even more pages to determine whether construction of the pipeline would be in the, quote, national interest. at any moment, the president could step in and immediately order approval of the pipeline, yet, he continues to sit idly by while more and more people, including a majority of the general public and even members of his own party, come out in support of the x.l. pipeline. mr. speaker, it is beyond reasonable doubt that creating thousands of jobs and providing american people more sources of oil by approving this

infrastructure project that costs the american taxpayers no money is definitely in the national interest. so what are we waiting for? today, the house of representatives will take up h.r. 3, the northern route approval act, which will approve the keystone x.l. application without, without a presidential permit and let the american people know that we will not wait around any longer. at the end of the day, this crude will find its way to foreign markets one way or another and construction of this pipeline will guarantee our access to it and help secure energy independence in north america. today, the average price for a gallon of gas in america is around $3.60, which is nearly $2 more than when president obama took first -- first took office. as the summer driving season approaches, that historically threatens to bring even higher gas prices for american families and businesses,

ensuring that every environmentally safe source of oil is available in order to maintain an adequate supply is vital. because the president yet again refuses to act on an issue of such great importance to the nation, the congress will lead by sending a clear message to the families of this great nation that we stand with you. we stand with jobs and we stand for a more secure energy future here in america. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. costa, for five minutes. mr. costa: i ask unanimous consent to address the house and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . costa: mr. speaker, this weekend throughout america in sem tears across the land -- cemeteries across the land, we'll celebrate and memorialize those men and women who have

served, who are serving and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in giving their lives to protect our nation's freedoms embodied in our constitution and our bill of rights that we hold most dear. and while memorial day is the time where family and friends gather to be together, we know, we know it is much more than that. this memorial day, we should all give thanks to the sacrifices that our men and women have made who have served in our nation's military. we should say thanks to our family members, to our neighbors, to all those who have served and we must always, always remember those who are no longer with us. we in our country, i believe, can never say thank you enough. for this great country we live

in is made dear for all of those who have made those sacrifice over 238 years. so this weekend as we gather across the land to be with our families and friends, let us pay thanks, let us take evidence of what it means to be an american, and knowing that at the end of the day the bonds that we share as american citizens are much stronger than whatever differences we may have. god bless those who are serving and those that have served and those that are no longer with us. god bless our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: last month, two scientists from oregon state university, shawn and allen,

published a peer review study in collaboration with scientists at harvard reviewing 11,300 years of global temperatures. they found that the range of temperature change in the last 100 years is equivalent to the temperature change over the previous 100 centuries. climate change is real. it's devastating and it's accelerating. now, most focus is or the trestial effect but other research points to rapid and devastating changes in our oceans. again, a study done by oregon state university, o.s.u. hemical oceanographer, and one looked into the fact that oysters were failing at an incredible rate to spawn and reproduce. and their study linked the production failures to the co-2

levels in the water and that is, you know, has incredible implications for the future of not only the shellfish industry, an important industry in the northwest and other parts of the country, but also for the whole ocean food chain. the ocean chemistry is also reatening something called terapods who are tiny seashells and they are at risk. they happen to be a food source for plankton, whales and of course our salmon who already have a host of problems in terms of their future. and then from the arctic monitoring and assessment program, the arctic seas are becoming more rapidly acidified. it turns out that cold water is especially susceptible, and as the sea ice in the summer recedes, more and more of the

arctic ocean is exposed to the increased levels of carbon dioxide and it's rapidly acidifying in addition to which the melting of the ice in greenland and elsewhere is adding freshwater which further degrades the capabilities of the oceans to deal with the carbon dioxide. and then finally, research in the northeast shows that the surface temperatures in the northeast continental shelf in 2012 were the highest recorded in 150 years of record keeping. they found that over the last four decades that many species of fish stocks are moving north to escape the warming waters, but there are many species that cannot move or evolve that rapidly which portends for more disasters. now, back in 1973, there was a

a nce fiction movie, mystery movie. it was about an overpopulated and polluted world and the final devastating blow was that the oceans were dying. and now we have evidence that our oceans are very, very much at risk from co-2 and climate change. now, the house republicans are using their leadership here to stymie efforts to even research and document climate change, let alone just totally denying that it's a problem. time and time again they voted to do nothing about climate change. they voted to block action on climate change no less than 50 times in the last congress. mr. speaker, it's time to listen to the scientists and get serious about climate change. the evidence is in. the only question now is whether congress will listen and act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new mexico, ms. lujan grisham, for five minutes. without objection. ms. lujan grisham: mr. speaker, i rise to talk about jobs. now, i served almost five months in the republican -controlled house of representatives, and i heard a lot of my colleagues talk about jobs, but we've had little opportunity to actually vote on legislation that would create american jobs. just this week, the "albuquerque journal" reported on the unbelievable difficulty that many new mexicans are having finding a job. the headline says it all. according to the article, when the downs racetrack and casino in albuquerque held a job fair last week to fill 400 openings, 6,400 job seekers showed up. one young man interviewed said, i put in 60 applications mountain year i've been

unemployed and haven't had a single call back. another job seeker noted, this is the first time in my life, in 49 years i've been without a job. you read about it, you think about it and then when it happens it's a real awakening. but instead of creating an environment that would foster economic growth, congress has done the exact opposite by allowing the indiscriminate across-the-board budget cuts, known as sequestration, to take effect. according to the director of the nonpartisan congressional budget office, sequestration could result in the loss of 750,000 american jobs this year alone. if there is one state that cannot afford to lose any more jobs it's new mexico. our state's economy has been barely crawling along since the great recession of 2008. last week, however, we finally got some good news. new mexico's department of work force solutions reported that our state's employment growth in april was the best it's been

in five years. a department of work force solutions official said, in fact, the economic recovery in new mexico may be gathering momentum as we start sustained recovery. now, just as new mexico finally appears to be on the way to economic recovery, our families and businesses so desperately need, the sequester threatens all of this progress. and this week new mexico got some really bad news. the department of defense announced plans tuesday to furlough about 680,000 of its civilian employees, including 7,000 new mexicans for 11 days through the end of this fiscal year. now, some may think 11 days doesn't sound like much, but let's take a closer look at what 11 days without pay means to individual families. when furlough notices will go out at the end of this month, 7,000 hardworking new mexicans will find out they will be losing about 20% of their salary for the rest of the

fiscal year. now, these families are trying to pay their mortgages, make their car payments and put their kids through college. families are already living paycheck to paycheck and struggling just to get by. can you imagine what losing 20% of a paycheck means to them? it's devastating. although new mexicans may feel the worst of consequences of the sequester this year, sequester is not just a one-year problem. it will negatively impact our nation's economy for the next nine fiscal years. we all agree we must reduce our long-term deficit, but we need a balanced approach that will create jobs. on may 14, the c.b.o. released new projections. the deficit will fall by an extra $200 billion this year than previously expected. the c.b.o. now forecasts that the deficit will shrink to 2.1% of the g.d.p. by 2015 from a high of 10% of g.d.p. in 2009.

the international monetary fund has called the pace of deficit reduction overly strong, arguing that washington should focus on job creation in the short term and develop a long-term strategy for future deficit reduction. the i.m.f. added that this year's $85 billion in sequester-mandated cuts will negatively impact growth this year and beyond. it's true that you can't tax your way to prosperity but you can't cut your way to prosperity either. and draconian across-the-board budget cuts aren't going to create jobs. i agree with those who say we need to get our fiscal house in order, but to do that we first need to solve the unemployment problem that is plaguing small towns and big cities throughout the nation. more than half of the deficits stems from a sluggish economy and an unemployment rate that is above 7%. mr. speaker, we need more americans to get back to work. we need more americans to get back to work so that less americans will need to rely on

social safety net programs in order to survive. we need more americans to get back to work so they'll have more money to spend on goods and services which will create even more jobs. it has become clear that the house republicans so-called plan to create jobs was an empty promise to the american people. if house republicans were -- creating vote jobs, they would pass the van hollen bill to ceal jobs. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, for five minutes. . mr. beshyop: i rise to recognize the passing of al, a vietnam veteran who lived an extraordinary life in service to his country and fellow veterans. he succumbed to cancer on january 21, 2013, at the veterans' affairs medical center in north port, new york.

al was born on october 21, 1947 in portugal. his family emigrated to the united states when he was 10 and settled in new york. he proudly served his country in the united states army during the vietnam war and received numerous awards and decorations. including two purple hearts, the bronze star medal, and the air medal. honorably discharged with the rank of sergeant in december of 1969, al returned to his home on long island where he pursued a career in nursing and was hired north port v.a. medical center in 1977. there he dedicated himself to the care and treatment of his fellow veterans as a v.a. registered nurse and nurse leader for nearly four decades. he's nonal as a high-l effective and empathetic caregiver who was never too busy to spend time with his patients. especially the most challenging among them. his own experience gave him a unique understanding of what his patients had endured in combat. in discussion was them, he often

cited his favorite book, "the things they carry." written by fellow vietnam veteran tim o'brien. soon after his start of his career at the v.a. medical center, he was promoted to nurse manager which gave him supervision of all inpatient psychiatric units and out patient treatment program. in addition to these significant responsibilities, al trained and developed staff in crisis interventions and implemented a crisis response team for the safety of v.a. patients and staff. in order to provide veterans the best care possible, al found the time to earn a master's degree in nursing from stony brook university. dear to al's heart was the suffolk county new york chapter of the vietnam veterans of america to which he devoted 38 years of service, working day in and day out, taking care of his boys, advocating for the needs of all veterans, and raising awareness of the contributions and sacrifices made by our nation's veterans and their families. in may of 2009, i had the great pleasure of working with al and

his friends and fellow vietnam veterans, richie and karen, to rename the river head new york post office in honor of suffolk county's only vietnam war recipient. that same year he took the lead of the vietnam veterans member norial garden at the medical center which recognizes and honors the sacrifices of our nation's service men and women. the memorial garden dedication ceremony was held in october, 2010, and attended by more than 300 people. in 2011, al and members of the v.v.a. were inspired by a replica of the veterans memorial wall to expand the north port v.a. medical centers vietnam veterans memorial garden for the inclusion of a permanent war memorial known as the wall of wars. it was during this time that al was diagnosed with cancer. although al will not be present at the v.a.'s dedication of the

wall of wars, his legacy as a war hero, v.a. nurse, and veterans advocate is and will be forever present on the grounds of the north port v.a. medical center and throughout suffolk county veteran community. on january 25, 2013, vietnam veteran and u.s. army sergeant al was laid to rest with military honors at long island's cal verton national cemetery. he's survived by his wife of 40 years, geraldine and their two sons, as well as six grandchildren. mr. speaker, on behalf of new york's first congressional district and a grateful nation, it is my honor and privilege to recognize al for his distinguished service and many contributions to our nation and his fellow veterans. he will always be remembered with our love and appreciation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. lumenauer, for five minutes.

mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. recently research has shown that fish populations are not waiting for climate change to make their habitat impossible for them to live. they are moving. that's right. fish all over the globe are migrating to cooler climates. in a process that's been taking place for decades now, fish are sorting themselves out and leaving areas that no longer sustain their quality of life, their ability to reproduce and to thrive. they have steadily been moving to areas where the effects of climate change are not so pronounced. isn't it interesting that fish, without fancy scientific instrumentation or computer analysis, have reacted to the facts in the sea and moved to

where they can function, where they can live, and where they can at least for the time being escape the impacts of climate change. they are also escaping from people who depend on them in their previous habitat to fish. but that's another story on the consequences of climate change and global warming. isn't it time that the political process starts responding in ways that even fish can? one would hope. but instead today on the floor of the house we are going to return to debate the keystone pipeline that would carry oil extracted from canada's tar sands to the u.s. gulf, and short circuit the presidential review. given the potential negative environmental impacts, the repeated efforts by some to rush the environmental and public safety review process, the overwhelming number of comments and concerns received from the

public, and the recent news about the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that have reached 400 parts per million, an amount not seen in at least three million years, i'm concerned that this sideshow over the keystone pipeline will make our climate problem worse rather than better. and poison the ability to make progress in the future. the simple fact is that this pipeline would facilitate the exploitation of one of the dirtiest sources of energy, tar sands oil, that poses public safety and health risks. in addition to possible worsening of the effects of global climate change, there are serious questions that remain about pipeline safety, spill prevention, and protecting the public from potential health this.s in the wake of tar sand developers are

amazingly exempt from paying into the oil spill liability trust fund, making american taxpayers libel for the costs of any spills from the canadian tar sands oil. this places i think an unacceptable and unnecessary risk on american taxpayers, one that we can ill afford to assume today. this will be the seventh time that we voted and that i will vote against proposals to streamline the building of the keystone pipeline. as some members of the house continually, repeatedly attempt to circumvent the legislative process and rush its proposal. the only positive of this project is creating several thousand temporary construction jobs and a few dozen permanent. that's no reason to short circuit the review required by law. the potential environmental harm done by the pipeline, both from the threat of oil spills to the

precious aquaer if that it will be passing over, and -- aquafur that it will be passing over, led me to the conclusion that i hope president obama does not approve the pipeline. there are many things we should be doing to rebuild and renew america and create millions of jobs, not a few thousand temporarily construction jobs. we ought to be looking at different approaches to revenue and dealing with carbon pollution. for instance, we are discussing a draft that would potentially tax carbon emissions dealing directly with the problem. help provide revenues to lower taxes and pay for what america needs, and to deal with emerging technologies and level the playing field for technologies of the future. now, as we watch climate change

begin to have serious impacts on our environment, our fish, our wildlife population, and our seasons, and the weather, the least we can do is to take actions -- take taxes that may well make climate change worse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. if no other member seeks recognition, pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house >> handy guide to the current congress with updated listings for each member of the house and senate. contact information, district maps, and committee assignments. also information about cabinet members, supreme court justices, and the nation's governors.

the directory's $12.95 plus shipping and handling. order yours online at c-span.org/shop. we are covering a number of congressional hearings on the c-span networks today, including one featuring an economic outlook from federal reserve chairman ben bernanke. he's before the joint economic committee today. we'll take you there live now. it got under way at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> i laid out this view as you mentioned of pessimism and i was agnostic about that. there are a lot of differences between the world today anti-world in the 19th century when other inventions were being made. what's important about the difference, most important differences have to do with first of all, the amount of research and development funding, the skills available, the markets that make it very profitable to be first to market with a new innovation. and since research development

and technological progress are the engines of lorment growth, i think -- long-term growth, i think that as a country we ought to think about our policies in that area and try to do what we can to address shortages of stem workers, mismatches, assure that talented people from all over the world can come to the united states and participate in technical innovation. so i think this is a very important area. i'm the first to admit it's outside the realm of what the fed can do. it's really something that only congress can address. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank you, senator sanders is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, thanks for being with us. three or four issues that i have been working on that i would appreciate your commenting on. number one, i continue to worry about the growing inequality and wealth in income in this country. you have a situation where the top 1% owns 38% of the wealth in america. bottom, 60%, only 2.3%. in the last recent years.

almost all new income went to the top 1%. as part of that i also worried -- worry about concentration of ownership particularly with what's going on in wall street. we bailed out the large financial institutions because they were too big to fail, yet all 108 today are larger than they were when we failed them out. there is a growing feeling among many economists, including the president of the dallas fed, that maybe the time is now to start breaking up these large financial institutions. the top six of which have assets equivalent to 2/3 of the g.d.p. of the united states of america. i would like you in a second to comment. is now the time to break up large financial institutions which have unbelievable amount of assets and are, in my view, in danger at some point in the future of once again being in a position of having to be bailed out? issue number two deals with the

structure of the fed. laws that the fed did not make but congress made. 12 regional e have fed reserve banks which have nine members each. my colleagues may not even know this, but as a result of congressional law, of the nine members, three come from the financial institutions themselves, three others are appointed by the financial institutions, and three are -- come from appointments by the fed. we have had absurd is situations where jamie dimon, the c.e.o. of the largest financial institution in america, sat on the new york fed whose job is supposedly to regulate wall street, and many of us think that is the fox caught in the hen house. we'll be reintroducing legislation to end what i consider to be an absurdity of having six out of nine members of the regional feds come from

the financial institutions. the last question i'd like to ask is the fact that from the end of 2007 until april of 2013, financial institutions have increased the amount of excess reserves held at the fed from $1.5 billion to more than $1.7 trillion. and one of the reasons why that has occurred is that since 2008, the fed has provided interest to financial institutions to keep this money at the fed. so what we see is huge financial institutions pocketting huge amounts of money at the fed getting small amounts of interest. i think it would be more productive if it was going to small businesses and into the productive economy rather than sitting at the fed. and the legislation that i am working on would address this problem by prohibiting the fed from providing interest to banks

on their excess reserves and require the fed to impose a % fee on the excess -- 2% fee on the excess reserve. in other words, get the money out rather than pocket it in the fed. i'd love to have your comments on them. thank you very much. >> senator, on the last one, the amount of excess reserves in the banking system is completely out of control of the banks. the fed puts those reserves in the system. the banks can pass them around each other. they can't do anything about this. it is like a hot potato. it's the half quarter of a% we're paying them is not preventing money from going out to small business or any other business. after all, loans are paying four percentage now. prime 3.5%. if banks can find attractive loans, they'll make those loans rather than hold the excess reserves.

in addition, getting rid of the interest in excess reserves capacity would force us when we come time to tighten it would force us to sell assets very quickly in a very disruptive way instead of using that tool to tighten interest rates and avoid inflation. it would be very counterproductive. we'll discuss that in more length. >> breaking up the large banks. >> that's a very complex question. i think that many of the suggestions to break them up have either involved relatively small changes or a form of glass-steagall. i think that's not the solution because as we saw in the crisis, investment banks, commercial banks separately got into serious trouble. i would support -- so i think we are doing a lot of things which i don't have time to go through through dodd-frank, through bossle 3, through order liquidation authority and other authorities to move in the right direction towards addressing too big to fail. as i've said, if we don't feel after some additional work here

that we have addressed that problem i would certainly be supportive of additional steps. i think the best direction is probably requiring the largest firms to hold more capital proportionately and that would force them both to be safer, to have more even -- more level playing field and if their economic returns didn't justify the higher capital costs to induce them to break themselves up. >> structure of the fed. >> structure of the fed. i am very open to discussing them. i want to assure you as strongly as i can the primary role of the board members is, first, to give us market insight, business insight, let us know what's going on in the economy. they're also helpful on some operational issues. but there's a complete and utterly impermeable ball between the board members and any supervisory matter. and i assure you that -- and so there really is no conflict. that being said, i could see why you might have different people

represented on that board. more union members, for example. and i think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to talk about. >> thank you. all time has expired. representative paulson. >> thank you. i wonder if you can comment on what are the primary factors that you're engaging the economic risks of your current policies. in other words, given the effectiveness of federal reserve policy has been somewhat muted over the last few years by a strong deleveraging cycle, how important do you consider the expansion of bank lending or the own senior loan officer as a gauge of future inflation? and also, what other factors other than just pure inflation measures do you look at as potential precursors to an expansion of economic risks due to these policies? >> we've seen a number of things the effects of the financial crisis are being mitigated to some extent. as you mentioned, consumers are

deleveraging their debt burdens and their interest burdens are going down. and their balance sheets are healthier than they have been. smaller number of people are underwater on their mortgages, for example. banks are much healthier. in our regulatory role, we've been doing the stress tests and we've found that the largest banks have roughly doubled the amount of capital that they had. and the survey you mentioned, the willingness to lend is better. there are issues in lending but credit availability is improving. so a number of factors related to the financial crisis still seem to be moderating and that's hopeful for further progress in the real economy. we look at market

data, we look at commodity prices, commodity future prices. we don't see at this point much sign of inflation. in fact, inflation is on the low side historically. if you look at market indicators, the very fact the united states could borrow 30 years at under 3% is indicative of the idea that investors are not anticipating a major inflation problem in this country. so we are very attentive to that. that is half our mandate. but at the moment inflation, if anything, seems a little bit on the low side. >> and knowing that's the case, why do you think businesses aren't investing so much in the economy? interest rates are at really low interest, especially long-term interest rates. i don't speak to small businesses in minnesota saying -- at what point can you comment whether it's the tax increases, you talk about the payroll tax in your testimony. you talked about the tax increases maybe at the end of the year having an effect.

at what point do you think the tax hikes on high earners or part of the new taxes associated with the implementation of the affordable care act? and in minnesota, senator klobuchar and i see the effects of the medical device tax. at what point do you think the taxes will have an impact in terms of having a drag on the economy? >> they have been investing and hiring. in a way that is consistent with the overall slow pace of growth. they're not seeing the rapid growth that would induce them to expand capacity quickly. given the amount of growth that they see, they are -- they have been investing, and employment growth as unsatisfactory as it is is probably a little stronger than you would have guessed given how much g.d.p. growth there is, how much output growth there is. firms don't respond very directly to interest rates. they do respond to final demand. how many orders they have. and so indirectly the way monetary policy stimulates capital investment is by generating more consumer demand

through the fact lower interest rates do affect consumer spending or raise house prices or other asset prices. we've been seeing the last few reports on consumer spending have been surprisingly strong and we've seen improvement just the other day. we saw very substantial improvement in consumer optimism. that's where the monetary policy's best channel for affecting investment if firms see more demand coming in the door, then they will expand capital and labor. >> and do you see a drag on the economy with some of the tax hikes that have happened at the end of the year? >> i mentioned a list, including tax increases, elimination of the payroll tax cut. other things. i'm not pronouncing on the desirblete or the -- of any one of those specific policies. i'm just saying taking them all together, they have the effect of being a drag on economic growth and perhaps more than

necessary. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman bernanke, sometime earlier you and i had a conversation and i asked you the question about why the united states was doing relatively better than its neighbors across the seas and others and you said because we had the best looking horse in the glue factory. i wondering where that horse is, is that horse in the glue factory, is he in the pasture just outside the glue factory or is he back on the farm? >> well, it's clearly the case that we are not yet where we want to be. we have 7.5% unemployment. we have -- and we have very low ratio of employment to population. a lot of people leaving the labor force. g.d.p. growth has exceeded now where we were before the crisis, but we're stilwell below the trend of growth. that being said, i was struck by the -- at the latest meetings of

the i.m.f. and the g-20 in washington recently when the i.m.f. economists were talking about a three-speed global recovery by which they meant the fastest growth still taking place in some of the emerging markets like china, but the united states now breaking away to some extent from the pact, notably from europe and japan, and we have had better performance. in the case of europe, it was about less than four years ago that the u.s. and the euro area had the same unemployment rate. today our unemployment rate is 7.5% and the european rate is about 12%. so we have done better than some other countries for a variety of reasons, not just monetary policy or any single factor, but we are moving in the right direction. but, you know, i don't think it we can be satisfied given where the labor market is and given we still have unused capacity in this economy. >> you cautioned in your

statement that too much restraint too quickly continues to be the head wind that we may not want to get into, but we haven't addressed our longer term problems. the -- then you mentioned that you thought the 10-year window might be too short to do that. some of us are looking at something more like 30 years relative to where our growth will be relative to our debt. and particularly the enormous spike in mandated mandatory spending and the impact of that on interest rates and the economy and so forth. you suggested before that, you know, you've used a lot of the tools, most of the tools that the fed has to get us through this period of time. but ultimately that responsibility falls here and with the administration. we have yet to i think summon the political will to address that long-term problem. my take is that that is -- that

begins in earnest in a relatively short period of time, maybe two, three, four years. and so to me it would make sense that we'd begin to address it now. chairman klobuchar mentioned some of that earlier. could you expand a little bit more on what you think our responsibility is? because i start -- i'm starting to hear things like the fed is buying us time. so therefore we don't need to take action right now. is the fed being an enabler for an addiction that congress can't overcome? >> well, the fed is doing what congress told us to do which is we're doing our best in order to promote maximum employment and price stability. congress needs to take a longer view. it's true that the interest burden today is quite low because of interest rates. when the c.b.o. scores budget plans out for a decade or two decades, it assumes that interest rates are going to rise which we hope they will because that will be a suggestion that

the economy's recovering and coming back to normal. so when looking at those five and 10 and 20-year budget plans, they assume higher interest rates. and you're going to have to deal with higher interest rates at some point, we hope, as the economy strengthens. and so i very much support your suggestion of having a longer horizon. i would note the 1983 or whatever it was social security commission that my predecessor chaired that the reforms that were introduced then are still now being phased in. so 30 years later, so for some of these changes, very long times -- make it much easier to achieve. > and lastly, your concern about the low amount of interest return and the risk taking or the reaching for yield. is this creating another potential bubble? there's a big surge in the

notet here that seems to be enforced by underlying fundamentals but i'd like your take on that. >> well, we're watching this carefully. of course, nobody can ever say with certainty what an asset price should be. but to this point, our sense is that major asset prices like stock prices and corporate bond prices are not inskipped with the fundamentals. for example, it was mentioned earlier that price earnings ratios and the like are fairly normal in the stock market. in addition, in thinking about risk to financial stability, you also have to look at things like leverage, credit growth and other indicators that suggest not only is there some mispricing going on but that this pricing has the possibility of damaging the greater financial system and we are not seeing that at this point. of course it's always again dangerous.

but to predict our sense is that -- those issues are still relatively modest but they require very close attention and we will continue to do that. >> we're glad you're doing that because we don't want a repeat of what happened. >> absolutely not. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. representative sanchez is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and mr. chairman, thanks again for being before us. i think it's -- we've had many years when you were the president's economic advisor and now as chairman. so i know that now you're sitting as the chairman, but i have questions overall about our economy and i would really like to get your idea on something in particular. i remember when chairman greenspan was before us and i talked to him about -- i spoke to what i thought the time of the housing market right around the time he called it a frosting in a particular set of markets. and of course since having left

said i completely missed what was going on. so i want to go back to housing because i think housing is such an incredible piece of the american budget, the american family budget, their sense of wealth creation because in many ways it's the first step and it's traditionally what we have used to make small businesses or to, you know, put kids through college, etc. so this is what i see going on now. around the nation in a lot of markets in particular in california, housing prices going up so everybody's cheering and everything. but what i see is foreign money coming in, moneys being bought fluffing nts, banks off large amounts of homes and putting them into hedge funds. these funds holding on to these and renting them out,

anticipating at some point, i'm sure, five, 10 years down the road to get appreciation out of those assets. rental markets tightening. rents going through the roof. and your average working family, at least where i live, is not able to buy a home because of people who will, have the money and the cash to come in and buy the home and in return not flip it, as we saw in the last speculation housing market, but actually hold it at a higher rate for rent to these families who now are becoming, unless we change something, permanent renters. so the housing market getting better but not for the middle class or the higher lower income class.

and almost changing them, i would say, into the inability to find their way to homeownership. so do you see that going on? do your people see that going on in the different markets? secondly, what can the congress do to ensure, not the other way that we went wrong that too many people that shouldn't have been buying that bought in but what we would normally call the middle class and people who should be attempting to buy a home not get caught in this cycle of i didn't get in and i didn't get a home? >> well, just a few comments. first, you know, with prices having fallen about 30% and with very, very low mortgage interest rates, affordability right now is the highest it's been in decades. so there are people who are able to buy now who could not have bought under other circumstances. although mortgage lending, i agree, is tight for the people in the lower part of the fico

distribution. i agree with that. on the rent side, many people who've lost homes or otherwise not become homeowners, stop being homeowners, have gone to renting and rents have gone up, as you said. so it's probably a good market response that houses that were previously owned are now available for rent. that's adding supply to the rental market and will probably take some pressure off of rents and reduce the rents that people have to pay who are forced to rent. >> excuse me a minute, mr. chairman. those people who had mortgage rates who were paying mortgages, and we know that a good amount of these people lost their jobs and that's why they were not able to continue their payment. but in most cases, what i see in my markets are lower mortgage payments that they were making versus higher rental payments that are now being caused,

again, because the family is not getting credit or family can't get credit or even those that qualify with credit, you know, cash offers from -- in particular, foreign markets, are, you know, wiping them off from being able to own them. so what i see for a family unit is a higher cost of housing effectively than what they had pre this whole problem. >> well, again, if you can get a mortgage, which i understand your question, the payments are low and affordability is high. i agree with you, if this is your question, i agree with you that mortgage lending is still too tight. there's a number of reasons for that. excessive conservatism on the part of the banks. some uncertainty about regulation. there's still work to be done to clarify securitization rules, for example. the need for g.s.e. reform and other things. fear of putbacks that the banks

still have. so i think over time, particularly as house prices go up a bit, that mortgage lending will become a little bit more accessibility to a broader range of people. but right now it's still relatively tight. so i agree with that. >> mr. chairman, all time has expired. senator lee. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman bernanke. mr. bernanke, does quantitative easing on the margin tend to encourage private sector debt or does it at least tend the margin to discourage private sector deleveraging? >> well, on the one hand, with low interest rates, you know, we do want people to spend normally. we want them to be able to afford a house or a car and that's part of what puts the economy back to work. but on the other hand, as the economy strengthens, jobs are created.

they get more income and interest rates are lower. so those factors overall help people delempling. as you look at the data, you'll see consumers have deleveraged quite a bit over the past few years. >> does it -- does this quantitative easing facilitate or otherwise promote the accumulation of government debt? at least at the margin? >> by private citizens? >> no. no. does quantitative easing have an impact on the accumulation of government debt? does the margins make it easier for the government to acquire a lot of debt? >> to issue a lot of debt, you mean. well, it does keep interest rates a bit lower in the short term. although, again, what we're a stronger is get economy which will support higher interest rates going forward. as i mentioned, any kind of budgeting process that looks ahead even more than one year will -- has to take into effect

the c.b.o.'s estimates that interest rates will be rising over the next few years and factor that in. when you make your budgetary calculations. so i don't see how raising interest rates were ma turrill prematurely -- it's important for congress to look at the five and 10-year window and look at how interest rates are expected to move and make decisions based on that. >> to the extent quantitative easing does have these impacts hat i've described, it does so basically by way of encouraging consumption. it's not sort of the aim of it? >> right. there's not enough demand in the economy so it encourages consumption, yet. >> net equity extraction from homes and increased leverage a problem the last time the fed had very low rates for very

prolonged period of time, say, in the mid 2000's? >> there was a lot of equity extraction from homes during that period. how much was due to the fed policy, how much was due to lax lending policies, how much was due to regulation is an abated question. >> and did the excessive leverage, whatever it's caused, tend to exacerbated the crisis that arose in 2008? >> yes. >> did the fed identify the weakness in housing in the mid 2000's and react to it? >> well, we saw -- we saw that -- and this goes back to my discussion with representative sanchez, we saw that the relationship between house prices and rents was very -- that house prices were very high relative to rents. house prices were historically very high and therefore it was always considered a possibility that house prices would come down. in fact when i became chairman

in 2006 house prices were already coming down. yes, we certainly saw that as a possibility. what we did not anticipate is how much damage it would do to our core financial institutions as it did and that led to the crisis. >> these things are hard to anticipate. would it be fair to say that debt can create risks that are by their very nature difficult to anticipate and once they arrive difficult to address? >> excessive leverage can create instability, that's correct. as i said, what we're seeing in households and in particular in corporations is a lot of deleveraging. much more -- much stronger balance sheets. more equity in the case of banks and firms than we saw prior to the crisis. >> so what would you say to those who might be concerned we could be facing a similar crisis coming up as we saw, you know,

in the mid 2000's? >> well, first, again, the indicators like asset prices, house prices, leverage, credit growth, all those things look very different today than they did before the crisis. secondly, there's a whole lot of reform going on. very bad mortgages were being made, as you know, and there's been a considerable amount of tightening up of the laws protecting consumers. there have been considerable increases in the amount of capital the banks have to hold and so on. so a lot has been done, and i'm not saying this work has been completely done but we've certainly done a lot to make the system more resilient. >> thank you very much. i see my time's expired. thank you, chairman bernanke. >> thank you. senator toomey is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman bernanke, for joining us again. just to follow-up on monetary

policy. isn't it true as a general matter that very accommodated monetary policy has the tendency to the extent that it's accessible at all to bring economic activity that would otherwise occur in the future closer to the present day rather than to increase the total amount of economic activity that ccurs over the long run? >> to some extent that's correct, but we have a situation now where, for example, home building is well below what can be sustained at a longer term. and so the more quickly we can get back to that normal level the more quickly our economy will be back to close to full employment. >> be that as it may, i think that's an important point to consider that accommodated monetary policy is not really a net growth strategy. it probably has a bigger impact on the timing of economic activity than the total amount. >> we're trying to mitigate the

effects of the recession but we can't affect long-term growth very much, that's right. >> right. another point, just a quick follow-up. senator coats and senator lee alluded to asset bubbles that have occurred in the past. i think it's clear virtually everyone that had a residential housing bubble in the last decade and i just -- i just worry that this extremely accommodated and unprecedented policy can manifest itself in unpredictable ways. when we see a recent surge in housing prices, huge rally in equities, high agriculture land prices, it's not as you point out, it's hard to know at any point in time exactly what asset ought to be worth but it worries me that it will manifest itself in unpredictable ways. one point i want to raise is you've discussed the general

strategy for exiting when that day comes. but always with an implication that there will be this ordinarily transition and i just -- i know you're aware of this but i think it's important to underscore that it's hard to predict how the markets will respond when the biggest holder of fixed income securities in the history of the world decides it has to sell them. you might decide you have to sell them. i know you may decide, you can let them run off, but that may not be enough. and i just think there's very significant risks that we're taking by accumulating portfolio of this scale. do you want to just comment on that briefly? >> well, i don't disagree this is not easy and requires good communication. we've improved our communication. >> by the way, i'd like to commend you for that. you have provided i think more transparency, more communication and more guidance than the fed has -- to my knowledge -- ever provided in recent history and i do think that's constructive. >> thank you.

i guess i would say there's no risk-free strategy here. inflation is 1%. unemployment is still high. so we could tighten monetary policy and address some of the issues that you have in mind. i think it would include a big market correction if we move very quickly and unexpectedly. >> that's the reason the markets is where it is because of the monetary policy. >> because the market thinks monetary policy is creating more profits and growth. >> that's not the question. a quick follow-up to comments you made in the past about the swaps pushout in dodd-frank. i have something that would allow much -- not all, but much of the activity to be in the banks which i think is a better way for financial institutions to manage risk and a better way for end users to be able to use those products. do you share the few that it's a good idea to repeal parts of the swap pushout? >> yes.

the federal reserve had concerns about this prior to the enactment of the law. we still have concerns about it. >> last thing i want to mention , an re are -- august 9 fmoc meeting that contained notes on an august 1 video conference in which there's a reference. i'm going to quote from a portion of it. refers to, "plans that the federal reserve and the treasury had developed regarding the processing of federal payments, potential implications for bank supervision and regulatory policies and possible actions that the federal reserve could take if disruptions that market dysfunctions could affect the objectives." this was because of the debt limit impasse. so clearly there were plans how to deal with processing of fed payments and other things. could you give us a sense of what those plans consist of and what you can tell us about those plans? >> well, my memory won't be

complete but we looked at our systems and our ability to, you know, make payments to principal and interest holders. for the most part we founded we were able to do that pour possible exceptions that people were holding savings bonds and things not easily connected to the system. we also had some discussion of the kind of policy we would have with banks. for example, discount window lending. would we accept a default at treasury and all those kinds of things and contingency planning in case this were to happen? what we did not do is directly engage the private seblingtor for any conting -- sector for any contingency planning. we were mostly looking at our internal systems and our ability to address whatever directions -- we are the agent, of course, of the treasury and it's our job to do whatever they tell us to

do. we were just working through our capacity. both as an agent and managing the payment system and also as a bank supervisor to deal with a possible default if the debt ceiling was not raised. >> ok. i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator bob casey is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you. vice chair klobuchar, thank you for making this opportunity available to us. chairman bernanke, we're grateful for your presence here and your testimony. i have to say as well the work you've done to deal with a set of economic circumstances that we've rarely faced in american history. so you brought not just a lot of focus but also a lot of passion. i appreciate that. i want to focus on one issue. i'm not sure it's been raised yet but if it has i think it always bears even more

examination. the issue is tax reform. we have -- if there's one area of real consensus in area and across the country is a lot of consensus, and here it happens to be bipartisan, that we've got to simplify the tax code. we got to make it a much more workable tax system for individuals and for businesses. all kinds of ways to do that. the hard part is getting consensus in order to move forward. the good news here -- i don't want to overstate this -- but it's important to assert it, is we've had two chairman, chairman bachus in the finance committee the last, chairman camp, working individually and their staff to try to tackle this. and processes or mechanics are under way in both places. for example, every thursday in the finance committee we sit down around the table and for at

least an hour or more go through elements of the tax code. that's all the good news. i think moving in the right direction. the challenge is getting consensus. the question i have for you, maybe one or two. the basic question is, can you the an opinion or assess impact -- i'm assuming it would be positive but i'd like to hear about this -- on passage of a substantial bipartisan reform of the tax code? >> well, first i'd just make the observation that such a major action taken on a bipartisan basis would itself be confidence inspiring. i think most everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that the tax code is extremely complex and distorts economic decisions in a lot of ways. i think if it were done in a way that simplified it, made it more

economically efficient and rational i think it would be very positive. i hope that you and your colleagues can make progress on that. >> is there any one part of the tax code that is of particular significance in terms of the as verse impact it has on either business activity or economic growth or -- i realize there may be more than one. if there's one that you think is particular difficult to manage. >> well, the very difficult problem you face is the following -- most economists would argue that an efficient tax code is one that has a relatively broad base and low marginal rates. but low marginal rates is easy but broad base means restricting or limiting deductions and credits. so that's -- that's the depole, but political challenge -- goal,

but the political challenge is to figure out how to do that. as you know, the income tax, for example, the personal income tax, the biggest deductions are housing, charitable, state and local government and the health care exemption which are all obviously very popular and have their own purposes. so finding a way to, you know, to toll with that issue i think -- to deal with that issue i think is the most challenging part but has the biggest pay off if you can broaden the base and lower the tax rate. >> i hear about it a lot and i know we all do this sense that businesses have that there's rious -- i'd say a big measure, substantial areas of uncertainty. one is the tax code, one is the economy generally. frankly, one of the areas is what the congress will or will not do or hasn't done. it's my pleef we can get a

bipartisan tax reform agreement it would remove at least one element of uncertainty. i know my time has almost expired. as a former chairman, be on the right side of chairman brady. >> thank you, sir. representative duffy is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to follow-up on mr. casey's questioning just briefly. not only are we here to hopefully get bipartisan support for reform of our tax code, hopefully we'll have bipartisan support for fair implementation of our tax code. but that's not this hearing. you testified with regard to the need to in essence keep the spigots going with regard to monetary and fiscal policy, that you're going to continue to print money, drive interest rates down, that we should continue to borrow and spend on

our end in the short term to help grow the economy and work on our debt in the long term. i'm sure you are well aware of these numbers, but if you look at how much we've spent since 2008, the federal government in 2008 spent $2.9 trillion. in 2009 during the course of the stimulus bill, we spent $3.5 trillion. so stimulus bill, $3.5 trillion. half a trillion dollar jump. this year the c.b.o. projects us to spend $3.4 trillion. so we're almost spending this year the same amount we spent in the year of $800 billion stimulus bill. but your testimony today is that the -- we need to spend more in conjunction with your printing. can you smain that a little further for me why we need to spend more when we're already half a trillion dollars more in spending from fiscal year 2008? >> first, i didn't say spending. i talked about the whole package

which included tax increases and the elimination of the payroll tax cut. put that together and it's a drag on the economy. the government, you know, since the stimulus, the government has been tightening its belt significantly. i mentioned in my system there are 800,000 fewer government employees today than there were a few years ago. and i'm not advocating, i'm not here to advocate a major new stimulus program. i'm simply saying a rebalancing somewhat slower tightening in the near term and more aggressive and systematic attempt to address the longer term imbalance where the real problems are i think would be better. i'm not -- please don't misunderstand me. i am not in any way denying the importance of fiscal responsibility. i just think it's not the best way to go about it to focus entirely on the short term and

ignore the long term. >> i would agree with you on that point. one of the problems in this town is that we see the long-term implications of the course that we're on. you're well aware of the politics in these two chambers and with the white house and you've seen our side. i think aggressively talk about the long-term implications of our aging population and the impact on medicare. i think you'd agree that's the driver of our debt. >> spending costs and aging is important. >> what program does that come from? >> medicare and medicaid. >> you know on our side of the aisle we're trying to actually reform it and make it sustainable. one of the frustrations is we're ot able to get buy-in with others to actually join us in the effort. there's one thing to say, listen, i don't like the republicans' plan but then the other side has to put out a plan that makes it sustainable, too,

would you agree? make medicare sustainable in the long term? >> yes. >> both sides should make medicare sustainable so they could negotiate, correct? >> i don't want to get into negotiations. but -- >> i'm talking policy-wise. >> policy perspective, yes, we want medicare to be sustainable and we want the budget to be sustainable. >> and put -- have two sides to make it sustainable, right? >> there needs to be a bipartisan way of negotiating whatever you do. >> and that is both sides put out plans. one of my concerns with your testimony when you talk about the headwinds is you didn't talk about regulations. when i talk to small business owners people back in wisconsin, they're concerned about the things you mentioned. but they're also concerned about the rules, regulations, red tape. government is getting in their way when they are looking at expanding and growing their business when you have someone who is looking at starting a business, they will cite rule and relations and government interference -- regulations and

government interference as a problem. i see that as a headwind and that wasn't referenced. i wonder if you see that as a concern. >> it is a regulation. smart regulation is important. i wonder, though, whether these regulations are ones that have been imposed or things that have been in place for a long time. in talking about headwinds, i was looking at factors that were specific to this recovery as opposed to longer term growth issues. >> just quickly, i know your term is up in january? >> right. >> offered a second term by the president, would you accept? >> i'm not prepared to answer that question now. >> ok. some of us are concerned about the policys that have been implemented and the long-term impacts that won't take effect in the next six months but will impact us three, four, five, six years down the road. thank you for your testimony. >> thank you, representative duffy, for waiting until the last moment to slip that question in. chairman bernanke, thank you for being here. i think the fed played a

critical role in calling the financial crisis. i don't know that i agree with the assertion that everything good in the economy, including corporate earnings, has occurred because of direct monetary policy. i think that the economy is more complex and the private sector more resilient. i believe at this point in the recovery, while it's very fragile, it really is the fiscal roadblocks, aside from europe and some other issues, are really key to getting this economy going. we'll continue to explore monetary policy, timing, other issues in future hearings. mr. chairman, thank you for being here today. >> thank you, sir. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> and if you missed any of today's hearing, you can find it on c-span.org. the u.s. house will be gaveling in in about 15 minutes at noon eastern. they'll take up three bills, one of which is a bill allowing for construction of the northern portion of the keystone x.l. pipeline. we will have live coverage of the house when they gavel in. until then, a look at the bill

from this morning's "washington journal." host: we just heard from the congressman, republican of north carolina, the house will vote today. he's a co-sponsor, plans to vote yes. it's likely to be approved in the house but -- with the republicans support. how much democratic opposition do you think there will be? guest: i think thereby a fair amount of democratic opposition. the administration right now is going through the proper process for making a decision about whether this tar sands pipeline is in our environmental interest, is in the interest of our health. and what congress is trying to do is essentially have a foreign company bypass what american companies have to follow by going ahead and getting it approved in the congress. this is sort of an odd thing to do at a time when the

administration is going through all of the steps that every other international pipeline has to go through before it would get approved or denied. host: and "the hill" newspaper said it would eliminate them to get a cross-border permit from president obama to complete the canada to texas project, essentially giving the congress the right to approve it. the obama administration threatens a veto over that elimination of that cross-border permit. there are environmental groups, liberal groups who've expressed criticism to the president that he's dragging his feet on this, not yet come to a decision. we heard the congress say it's been -- do you share the criticism? guest: this is a pipeline that would bring some of the dirtiest oil in the orlando from canada to our refineries in the gulf coast. most of it would be for export. it's a pipeline through the united states, not to the united states. when it was first proposed, it

went through an environmental review process and was actually rejected. so the current proposal that's being considered was only made just a year ago. and what basically our law says is you have to go through the right type of environmental review. a lot of things have changed since the initial proposal for the older pipeline was made. we need to make sure that if we're going to have a pipeline like this it's in our national interest. and frankly having looked at this project for a long time it's not in our national interest. it's not in our environmental and health interest, it's not in our economic or security interest. this is a pipeline we don't need when we have better energy choices. host: what's the evidence to the contrary of what our last guest just said where he said there's minimum environmental impact, you say what? guest: this is a pipeline that would drive expansion of some of the dirtiest type of oil in the world, tar sands, which is found under the forest in canada. it's basically a substance that is stripped from under the

forest. it's like mountain top removal in wetlands and forests in canada. taking this out is much more carbon intensive. it causes a lot more green house gas emissions, a lot more of the type of pollution that causes climate change. the other thing about this is this is the type of oil that's more likely to leak when it's in a pipeline. once it leaks it's more difficult to clean up. this pipeline crosses the aqua if you are which is the -- aqua fer. this is the kinds of wings that we don't want to take. we've already seen the high costs of oil spills and of climate change. and why we should build another pipeline at this point that only makes these things worse is something that, you know, many people across the united states are really questioning. host: the congressman said 8,000 barrels a day is what you're looking at from this pipeline. it could lower gas prices.

guest: so this pipeline indeed will carry about 800,000 barrels per day from canada. but what we're really looking at is ironically a pipeline that might raise oil prices in the united states rather than lowering gas prices. this is primarily because right now that oil is, you know, basically doesn't have a port to go to. it doesn't have a way to export it. what the oil industry wants with this pipeline, they want the keystone x.l. tar sands pipeline so they can bring tar sands to bring it overseas for higher prices. meaning the price of oil in the united states would go up if keystone x.l. is built. host: we heard the economic arguments as well. this will create jobs. the chamber of commerce said small businesses need the keystone pipeline the most to help them with rising energy prices. forbes says why president obama will say yes to keystone because the -- it's out of the gate. transcanada is moving forward.

part of the pipeline is already being built. guest: so part of the pipeline that's being built is the southern part which is to take oil from oklahoma down to the gulf coast. the part that's under question right now is the part that would bring new tar sands oil in from canada. and as far as jobs go, this is a pipeline that will bring about 35 permanent jobs. that's the calculations that are done by our own state department. it would bring just under 4,000 construction jobs. obviously very important. we can get those construction jobs in the united states through clean energy jobs. we don't need to turn to dirty sources of energy that drive global warming in order to get the kind of economic recovery that we need in the united states. host: from that forbes article, the keystone x.l. network is nearly 70% complete and it already carries half a billion gallons of oil every single day. guest: this was built some number of years ago. this is why we don't need the

additional keystone x.l. pipeline. we already get tar sands from canada. there is an extensive pipeline system. an additional pipeline is really not about bringing tar sands oil to the united states. it's about bringing it to a deepwater port where it can go overseas to the higher prices on the international market. host: here's an article on the web. "the los angeles times," state department, minimal environmental impact from keystone pipeline. the article says that this might be -- this might increase the chances that president obama approves this keystone pipeline. then you have this story from "politico" that says organizing for america the president's action part of the white house to get people behind his agenda have yet to say anything about keystone. does that give you pause that the president might go ahead and approve this? guest: so the state department in their draft environmental

review found there was minimal environmental impact. the environmental protection agency did their comments and said that the state department really needed to go back to the drawing board and do a better job at that environmental review. the state department was not looking at the very substantial impacts from climate change that would be caused by this pipeline. they also weren't looking at the impacts on the health of communities around refineries, especially in the gulf coast area, or along the pipeline itself from spills. so there's a lot more work that the state department has before it to do the kind of thorough and accurate environmental review they promised the american people. host: when are you hearing that a decision might be made? guest: so there's no firm timeline set for a decision to be made. we need to see a final environmental review and there needs to be a national interest determination process which usually takes 90 days. the state department has promised there will be public comments. i would think at the earliest, late summer, early fall. but we've yet to see the final

environmental impact statement. once we see that we'll have a better sense of the timeline. host: why are we importing the -- guest: we used to import refined products from canada. what's happened is that canada has sort of reached capacity in terms of refining. instead of building new refineries in canada, they chose to u.s. u.s. refineries to take it to the next step. we get the question, why wouldn't canada send this oil out by its west coast or east coast? people in canada are also saying no to tar sands pipelines. they have the same concerns that we have about the impacts on their waters and their agricultural lands and their communities from tar sands oil spills. and the impact of climate change from expansion of the tar sands. host: we'll go to barry in florida. democratic caller.

hi. caller: good morning. you know, i sometime ago was conflicted about this subject, but i'm no longer conflicted about it. i strongly believe it should be approved. and to hear this lady say it's a national security issue, no, it's a national security issue to get it from the mill east, not from our democrat -- middle east, not from our democratic neighbor up north. now to throw in the idea that it is a climate change issue or that there's oil spill possibilities in the houston area, it just seems that these kinds of organizations are coming up with every possible argument to delay it. it's been delayed for years, and we know that the e.p.a., who has recently lost its director, has found every possible ideological way to try to remove this from

the public discussion. guest: well, i hear your concern approximate the national security issues. i think it's a very real concern for all of us. the way we're really going to deal with the national security need to think about where our oil comes from is by actually reducing our use of oil. we've made great strides there. america is actually using less oil today than we were a number of years ago. we have good fuel efficiency standards so our cars can run on less oil. but we need to do more and we have also cleaner options than tar sands oil. this is not a type of oil, this dirtier oil, this oil that drives climate change, this is not a type of oil we need to continue expanding to meet our energy and our security needs. st: we're talking with susan casey-lefkowitz here to talk about the keystone x.l. pipeline. a vote will take place in the house today, and looking like with republican support it will pass there.

unlikely, though, to be taken in the democratic-controlled senate. host: true? guest: it's interesting we hear that question whether or not the canadian oil will come out of the ground regardless. it's true that keystone x.l. is being, you know, seen by industry experts in canada as necessary for the expansion of the tar sands. so it is not inevitable that tar sands expansion will happen as quickly as the industry wants it to without this pipeline. this pipeline is really critical and it's a main driver of expansion because those pipelines aren't being built to the coasts in canada and there's really no other way to get the oil out to latin america, europe, china, to the international markets that the oil industry wants to reach. host: all right. jack echos that on twitter.

caller: how you doing. nice to get a chance to voice my opinion. i really wish that the conservative -- i mean, the liberal would leave alone the america and quit oppressing our economy when they should be dealing with china, when they should be dealing with india, because a barrel of oil burnt in this world is burnt in this world. it doesn't matter if we burn it. it doesn't matter if we burn it. if you want to stifle our economy, drive us to jobless conditions and the guy before me, he said a lot. you should answer more of his questions. guest: so that's a really excellent point that -- >> all of this available online at c-span.org. we'll leave here and take you live next to the u.s. house. they're gaveling in for work on three bills, including one that would approve the northern portion of the keystone x.l. pipeline.

in the senate today, they continue on work on amendments to the farm bill. amendment votes likely throughout the day. follow the senate on c-span2. and now live to the house floor here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, dr. ken wittman, idle wilde baptist church, florida. the chaplain: would you bow your heads? our father in heaven, our heads are bowed because that's the position of humility, a spiritual characteristic that in your word you said brings grace. we fold our hands to express godly fear because you said the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom and we all recognize, lord, that today that is the need of this hour and the need of this day. our hearts, lord, break with the families in moore, oklahoma, the loss and devastation leave us speechless. but it is in these heart wrenching days we find ourselves saying that we are not republican or democrats or

independents. we are one nation in need of grace, salvation, and healing. we pray the decisions in this chamber today will reflect your heart, a heart for the broken, the bruised, the abused and abandoned. may you help us today to think more about the spiritual than the economical, more about the eternal than the temporal. and lord, may we echo that puritan prayer of old, what we know not, teach us, what we have not, give us, and what we are not, make us. it is in jesus' wonderful name we pray, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. olson. mr. olson: i ask members, staff, and guests in the galley to -- gallery to join me in the pledge of aplieges.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty nd justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis, is recognized for one minute. mr. ilirakis: thank you, speaker. appreciate it very much. i rise today to welcome pastor house of before the representatives. stor whitten serves at the idlewild baptist church which has served the tampa bay community for many years. today it serves a congregation of more than 12,000 members on a 143-acre campus. under pastor whitten's leadership, the idlewild family has placed a focus on local and

global commissions. a biblical guidance ministry and classes for those who seek to grow spiritually and activities and ministries for all ages. pastor whitten is a pillar of our community and has guided tens of thousands of people as they develop and grow their personal relationship with the lord. mr. speaker, i welcome pastor whitten to our nation's capital and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will he want taint 15 further requests for one -- will entertain 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam chair. earlier this month i visited the explosive ordinance disposal more moralial in florida. the memorial wall is located from the e.o.d. school where every man is there to render,

locate, evaluate and dispose of explosives. mr. crawford: as former e.o.d., i understand the critical role our forces play as the key enablers on the war on i.e.d.'s both at home and abroad. i understand the dangers they face on the battlefield and here in the united states. the memorial wall tells the names of those who have given their life in defense of freedom. the wall does an excellent job of recognizing the incredible sacrifice that our e.o.d. forces and our men and women in uniform make every day on our behalf. a moment to name those that are not recognized on that wall. these men and women serve valiantly and lost their lives in the line of duty but are not included on the wall because they were not physically assigned to an e.o.d. unit at the time of their death. these brave warriors lost their lives performing e.o.d. duties, sailors, marines and deserve to be recognized for their

service. with memorial day approaching now is an appropriate time to recognize their sacrifice. i'd like to submit their names for inclusion in the congressional record. god bless our troops and god bless the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair asks all members to remove communicative badges prior to addressing the house. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. instead of working together to find a compromise, to fully reverse the sequester, house republicans have turned their backs on the american people and are jeopardizing our fragile economy. in fact, sequestration will cost 750,000 jobs this year alone, according to the congressional budget office. we saw last month how quickly and easily these cuts can be

addressed when congress passed legislation to address the air traffic control furloughs. but we have not been given the opportunity to address the 70,000 children who could lose access to head start or any of the other programs that have been crippled. funding for the national institutes of health have shrunk by $1.5 billion, cutting into life-saving medical treatment for areas that include breast cancer, heart disease and alzheimer's. the cuts from n.i.h. alone will result in a loss of more than 20,000 jobs and $3 billion in economic activity. we can address these cuts with cooperation. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. madam speaker, under

the threat of perjury, a tea party in texas 22 was asked these questions by the i.r.s. question one, have you attempted or will you attempt to influence the outcome of specific legislation? that activity is protected by the constitution. is this america? the second question. do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies? that activity is protected by the constitution. is this america? this is not america. and house republicans are going

to restore america by giving the people the truth they deserve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: madam speaker, the great lakes restoration initiative represents our nation's commitment to protecting the health of our great lakes, the largest source of fresh water in the world, representing $7 billion in economic activity annually. in western new york, the revitalization of buffalo's inner and outer harbor depends on efforts to restore the health of lake erie and the buffalo river. the environmental protection agency will soon host a series of public meetings to gain community input, to guide the next phase of great lakes restoration and one of the meetings will be held in buffalo. madam speaker, the great lakes are unique national treasure with global significance. the brookings institute report shows for every $1 invested in

great lakes restoration, a $2 return in the form of touring, fishing, homes are achieved. it's our responsibility to ensure that restoration is fully funded and be an active partner in protecting our great lakes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, it's a rare occasion when democrats, republicans, the president and his supporters and the public all agree on something. what doesn't make sense is while we all agree that it's time to build the keystone pipeline, president obama has blocked construction for over four years. the keystone pipeline will create over 42,000 jobs. it will invest $7 billion in the u.s. economy and it will increase the u.s. energy security and independence by afely transporting 830,000 barrels of oil a day.

mr. williams: at a time when gas prices are on the rise and unemployment remains around 8%, we cannot afford to delay this project any longer. the president's own website says we need an all out, all of the above energy strategy that develops every available american source of energy. i say, mr. president, you have a lot to worry about today and currently. so forget about this and let the oil flow. so the keystone project is ready. congress is ready. the public is ready. mr. speaker, is the president ready? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are advised. to address the house, to address the chair. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek rise? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. hahn: madam speaker, for over 200 years, the u.s. merchant marines have been a

pillar in the foundation of our country's national security and economic growth, and so it is fitting that every year on may 22 we celebrate national maritime day in recognition of their service and sacrifice across the centuries. on this day we reflect on the service of the men and women of the merchant marines who served during world war ii, many thousands of whom died delivering the arsenal of democracy over the seas to the battlefields of europe and the pacific. marchant mariners died at a higher rate in world war ii than any uniformed service. unfortunately, the veterans of the marchant marines who risked their lives in service of this nation and all freedom-loving nations were never eligible for the provisions of the g.i. bill that helped millions of veterans go to college, transfer seamlessly into civilian life. that's why i offer an act that would provide a $1,000 monthly benefit to the nearly 10,000

surviving world war ii mariners, by providing this modest benefit, we will finally be giving our brave marchant mariners the benefits and recognition they deserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i come to the house floor today to honor all those who died fighting for on. this coming monday, this nation will observe memorial day, a day set aside to pay tribute to the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country in defense of our freedom. as members of congress, so much of what we do on behalf of our constituents touch the military in some way. recently, my office secured a new sieve very star medal for the late john chase, a world war ii veteran from batavia, new york. drafted into the army, mr.

chase fought bravely in the battle of rhineland. last month as he agree increasingly ill, his family reached out to my office on getting a medal. in the process, we discovered that he qualified for the bronze star, which he never received. we were able to present the medals to mr. chase's family the day he passed. allowing them to be properly displayed at his funeral. i want to thank mr. chase posthumously for his distinguished service and pay my respects to all americans killed in wars both present and past. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california eek recognition? ms. sanchez: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: i thank, madam speaker, and i rise today to bring awareness to the devastating effects sequestration is having on

h.u.d. and those who benefit from the agency's work. because of congress' failure to pass legislation to reduce the deficit, the federal government is making across-the-board spending cuts to domestic and defense programs, including h.u.d. and all its related agencies. these cuts are having a profound impact on people, especially in the rental and homeless assistance programs and family in my district are feeling this firsthand. the housing authorities in my district will soon be forced to consider terminating 1,800 families from housing assistance. cuts to housing authorities will affect their capacity and their efficiency to serve low-income individuals and family the elderly, the disabled, all of whom need these programs to survive. our focus in a community should

be to do everything possible to prevent homelessness. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. powell zen: like most montanans, i was appalled to learn the i.r.s. targeted groups for their political beliefs. r. daines: that's why i signed on to the keep the i.r.s. out of your health care act which says the i.r.s. cannot be involved in any aspect of the the health care law.

i held a town hall meeting with many mt.ians and most agreed the i.r.s. should be stripped of its power to implement obamacare. the american people have every right to demand their government is accountable and that they are serving the american people not political motivation. social security sadly clear that stopping the i.r.s. from using its power to oversee americans' health care is a necessary step. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. berah -- mr. bera: i'd like to congratulate the qaem from u.c. irvineful u.c. irvine, through its academics, research and athletics continues to make

me proud. the volleyball team recently won their fourth championship in seven years. congratulations especially goes to connor houston, the most outstanding player. he was on the all-tournament team and hats off to coach tippin who just -- who is the second coach in 44 years of men's volleyball history to coach a team to championship in his first year. you've made us all proud. go, anteaters. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and rhett re-my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one min. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. my constituents are asking me this question, what does this administration have against expanding energy production?

more american energy means more american jobs. we all know that that is true. it also would mean lower energy costs, stronger national security, and a boost to our economy. boost that we badly need with 12 million americans out of work. yet the president has seemed to stymie the energy sector at every single turn. we're going to give him the opportunity to -- the opportunity to change that record as we bring another bill forward that would approve moving forward with the northern route of the keystone pipeline. now we all know that burdensome, over-- burdensome overregulation by this administration has caused energy output domestically on our federal lands to decrease significantly. about 30%. it hampers our ability to be productive. i yield back the plans of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> this week we saw heartbreaking images of devastation following a tornado in moore, oklahoma that is estimated to have been more than a mile wide. the scope of the disaster reminds us that we're all at the mercy of nature's whims. but it also reinforces a sense of community that we share as americans. ms. chu: when the funnel cloud dissipated, oklahoma mans were met by -- ykians were met by friends, neighbors -- oklahomans wered me by friends, maybes and others ready to help, the same as those on the east coast after hurricane sandy, and after hurricane katrina in the ninth ward. every american wants to help.

whether we face tornadoes on the great plains or earthquakes, we face them together. let's make sure these disaster ictims get the aid they need in a timely manner. whether we are in a red state or a blue one, we are all equally deserving of assistance. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: parents know all too well the sinking feeling around the kitchen table when it's time to pay bills. the once simple task of putting gas in the car is -- has become an act of financial acrobatics. house republicans are committed to an all of the above american energy strategy. if there's more american energy, prices will be more affordable and there will be more american jobs, period. who would stand in the way of that?

apparently president obecause massachusetts the president continues to play favorites in the energy sector and block domestic energy with onerous regulations. red tape only makes it harder to capitalize on economic growth opportunities and harder to achieve energy independence. if the president were just to sign off on the keystone x.l. pipeline today, he'd open up thousands of american jobs but for five year he is has refused. house republicans are serious about expending -- expanding energy production. it's time the president got serious too. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to acknowledge and congratulate john laird a constituent of mine in santa cruz, california. today he's being hosted at the white house as one of the 10 persons to be presented the

harvey milk champions of change award. mr. farr: he's a committed public servant, counting 23 years in elected office and 40 years in public life overall he also happens to be gay. john's years of leadership prove that people who are -- that people are people and they have skills to share. sexual orientation doesn't somehow change the desire to serve others. currently john serves as the california secretary of natural resources where he does an outstanding job of overseing the state's vast outdoor resources. again, i say congratulations to secretary john laird for being true to himself and true to public calling. and all of us in the state of california, being the one who benefit from it. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> today i rise in support of the keystone x.l. pipeline and urge passage of h.r. 3, the northern route approval act. in the 1,700 days that the transcanada has been waiting for approval for keystone x.l., the state department has issued over 15,000 pages of documents analyzing the project's environmental impact this administration continues to delay and impede efforts to foster oil and natural gas production under an all-of-the-above energy solution. recent advances in technology put america at the center of a booming natural gas industry, particular pli in my area of the p.a. 10th district and a nato parliamentary report says that shale will provide enough gas to supply the united states

for the next 90 years at least. if americans have access to vast and affordable resources why aren't we using them? the same report showed the u.s. could lead the world in oil and natural gas production. it's time to build. remove the roadblocks preventing construction of the jobs, creating economy boosting keystone x.l. pipelinesful i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous condition sent to address the house for one minute the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yarmuth: i want to share a letter i received from my constituents, leslie and brian tucker. quote, after being robbed by our home lender in the mortgage fiasco, my wife took a job at the public schools and turned it into a career she certained a certificate in early

childhood education and rose to an elite teacher position. i'm a union steelworker with bad insurance. we have three children together, the youngest is 13 months. my wife was recreantly -- recently diagnosed with hypothyroidism and requires a -- an expensive procedure to fix it. middle class life now requires two incomes -- incomes. without my wife's job, we will undoubtedly end up drawing some sort of assistance. if congress can fix travel delays with the stroke of a pen, then helping my wife and the other teachers in louisville who are being laid off should be a walk in the park. i urge my creags -- colleagues to listen to the tuckers and and end sequestration. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute.

>> i rise to pay tribute to a modern day heroine, ms. frances monson who passed away. francis led a life full of service, love and dedication to our family, friends, and faith. her daughter ann has remarked of ms. monson, instead of looking for the recognition of the world, she has received her recognition of worth from such things as a happy smile, or tissue of a son or the outstretched hand of a grandchild. in 199 , she was recipient of the continuum of caring humanitarian award by the friends of st. joseph villa. mr. stewart: but she never asked for a lot of attention. her life was a shining example of one filled with faith, hope, and charity. mr. and onal note,

mrs. monson have been an inspiration for me and my family. they have served as a model for 14 million mormons around the world. her devotion to faith has touch sod many it will leave a lasting impression on the world. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. ms. tie spuss texas i rise to encourage my colleagues to join me as original co-sponsors of the pay as you rate act. the veterans administration currently has more than one million backlog cases and 70% of these have been under review for more than 125 days. for some veterans, like those in southern nevada, the average time to process a claim is

close to 500 days and this is just unacceptable. the pay as you rate act will ensure that veterans receive at least some of their benefits in a more timely fashion. currently the v.a. withholds benefit payments until their entire claim has been reviewed and processed. s that serious problem especially for iraq and afghanistan veterans whose average claim contains 8 1/2 separate components. the pay as you rate act will require the v.a. to pay veterans' benefits as each element of the claim is reviewed, rather than waiting until the entire package has been processed. this is a commonsense change which will put money in veterans' pockets sooner and address the backlog. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in recognition of national foster care month. all children deserve a safe, loving, permanent home, yet more than 400,000 of this nation's children in foster care are still looking for such a place. a place where safe, supportive, and stable families can help nurture their dreams to reality. mr. speaker, our nation can never forget these amazing young people and we should all thank the thousands of care givers already answering the call and working tirelessly to help these children in need. mr. messer: but together, we must pledge to do more. despite the best efforts of thousands, many foster youth struggle to find a permanent home. we are a nation good enough and great enough to answer this call. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker. the mantra for at least four years has been the federal budget deficit. but for some reason, it is now rather quiet. and the question we should be asking is why. could it be last week the c.b.o. has readjusted its projection and has determined that the government's annual deficit is shrinking faster than expected? actually shrinking. the deficit which topped 10% of the gross domestic product in 2009 and exceeded $1 trillion a year is now expected to shrink to $642 billion this fiscal year. $200 billion lower than expected. deficit is expected to be 2.1% of the g.d.p. by 2015, a rate

that is deemed manageable by the c.b.o. so why aren't we talking about this? just so we're clear, the $200 billion is not due to the sequestration. shouldn't we be saying something is going right? could it be if the implementation of the obama policies may be working? imagine if we implemented it all? mr. speaker, let's talk about it -- imagine if we implemented it all. mr. speaker, let's talk about it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gingrey: i recognize the courage and the bravery of those service men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our most cherished principles. this memorial day, we honor their lives in the name of freedom and we owe them our deepest respect and gratitude but even more we owe them our allegiance to the principles for which they have given so

much. we reflect upon these ideas as we have on this day for the past 145 years. service to one's country is a value that's been deeply engrained in american hair tamming and especially in my home state of georgia. you will be hard pressed to find a person who did not either personally serve or have a family member or friend who served. mr. speaker, my home district has recently lost 37 of these unforgettable heroes, and it is in their memory that i would like to give my deepest regard to the service members who have laid down their lives and the families whose loved ones have been laid to rest for our great nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. again, let me offer my deepest

concern and sympathy for our fellow americans in oklahoma. what an enormous tragedy and devastation, and our friends in north texas. america is embracing them as we should. i rise today to acknowledge as we look towards this coming weekend to honor those who've fallen in battle and to be able to celebrate the experience that members of congress, women members of congress had this morning in commemorating the war memorial for women and to salute brigadier general wilma vott who was the founder and originator along with members of congress of this historic memorial. today we ascended to arlington cemetery where we placed a wreath in honor of those women, 154 women have fallen in afghanistan and iraq. we had the privilege of honoring five men from the five military branches and pay

tribute to those who were willing to sacrifice. men and women sacrifice. they are parents, mothers leave behind their children and families. families depend upon women in many different ways, and it is greatly an honor to be able to honor those women and to say as well that we will never, never forget those men and women that have fallen in battle, and we will be there on memorial day, as i will be in my location doing a flag ceremony and at the veterans cemetery because this is what america does. we never forget those who fell in battle for us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: jabe. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida -- the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. 1,700 days and counting. that's how long it's been since the application to build the

keystone x.l. pipeline was committed to the state department. and with each passing day, every new delay, job creation has been stalled and american energy independence has been pushed back to the back burner. that is why i'm pleased to join my colleagues in saying no more roadblocks to american-made energy. no more roadblocks to the 40,000 jobs at that will be created during the construction of the keystone pipeline, not to mention the jobs to run it and operate it in the future. mr. southerland: the time for the keystone x.l. pipeline is now. the time for our energy independence is now. let's pass this bipartisan legislation and get to work for the american people. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is

recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to be able to begin with a quote. mr. tipton: we're tired of waiting and we believe the time has come to make the final decision on one of the most important projects that will unlock energy future -- for the future, the keystone x.l. pipeline. this quote is from shawn of the afl-cio. the time has come for america and north america to be able to seek and achieve energy self-sufficiency. this is part of the solution. americans are tired of not planning for the future. we need to unleash that potential to be able to put our people back to work. the time has come. the time is now. let's get america back to work. let's create energy security right here on this continent. with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house a communication.

the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to section 3 of the protect our ds act, 2012, public law 112-275, i represent robert cramer of huntsville, alabama, to the commission to eliminate child abuse and neglect. thank you for your attention to this appointment. signed sincerely, nancy pelosi, democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on may 22, 2013, at 11: 08 a.m. appointments, military compensation and retirement modernization commission. signed sincerely, karen l. aas.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. webster: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 228 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 27, house resolution 228, resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 3, to approve the construction, operation and maintenance of the keystone x.l. pipeline, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally divided among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority members of the committees on transportation and infrastructure, energy and commerce, and natural

resources. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committees on transportation and infrastructure, energy and commerce and natural resources now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-11. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or ithout instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. webster: for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague on the rules committee, 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 -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. webster: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. house resolution 228 provides a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 3, the northern route approval act. the rule makes 10 of the 25 amendments submitted to the rules committee in order, nine of which were sponsored by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. and it provides for a robust debate in the house of representatives. the underlying bill was marked up by three committees of jurisdiction and each committee reported the bill favorably with a bipartisan vote. additionally, the u.s. senate on march 22, 2013, voted to approve the pipeline by a vote of 62-37. mr. speaker, there are four simple reasons this bill has

garnered bipartisan support. it creates american jobs. it increases our energy independence. it strengthens our national security and it will contribute to lower gas prices. this bill leads where the president has waivered and finally approved the northern rule of the keystone x.l. pipeline which has been studied for over 1,700 days by 10 federal agencies and several state environmental agencies. the u.s. department of state has issued four environmental impact statements at a total length of 15,500 pages. these studies prove that the vast majority of the project will not result in a significant environmental impact and mitigation efforts will be undertaken to reduce any environmental impact. additionally, the project concludes 57 project-specific special conditions to ensure the maximum level of safety. due to these conditions, the u.s. state department's environmental impact statement found that the pipeline will

have, quote, a degree of safety over any other typical cron instructed domestic oil pipeline system, end quote. for four long years, multiple studies and well over 15,000 pages in environmental analysis, the administration claims that the x.l. pipeline still cannot be approved. we all hear the echo of the president chiding congress with his slogan, we can't wait. i would like to ask, america, if not now, when? this bill answers that question and the answer is today. by preventing -- by -- it is clear that this pipeline will create jobs, increase national security and contribute to lower gas prices. for this reason h.r. 3 breaks the presidential logjam and improves the worth while project. on december 23, 2011, both the u.s. house and the senate unanimously approved and the president signed into law a bill that would require the president to approve the

pipeline unless the president determined that the project did not serve national interest. on january 18, 2012, the president said no, no to the pipeline claiming it did not serve national interest. by preventing this project from moving forward he said no to 42,100 construction and manufacturing jobs at a time when america needs work. he said no to cheaper gas prices for comboods and services which could result -- goods and services which could result in reduced energy costs. as you know, mr. speaker, lower energy costs leads to lower manufacturing and shipping costs which in turn contribute to less grocery, gas and utility bills for the average american family. he say no to incressed -- increased diversify case of america's oil supply. he said no to less dependence on foreign oil. by this inaction, the president said yes, yes to more oil from barges from the mideast.

when the pipeline is finalized it will transfer 830,000 barrels of oil each day with totals nearly half of our current daily imports from the mideast. the president said yes, yes to our ally canada, taking its business elsewhere to china, rather than the united states. the oil from the tar sands of canada will go on the market somewhere. whether we aprove the x.l. pipeline or not. this is our chance to ensure americans will have the opportunity to benefit from the energy supply, not china. the state department acknowledged that the united states will be more secure if we relied more heavily on a non-opec sort such as canada for -- source such as canada for our energy needs. according to state department, and i quote, non-opec, canadian crude oil supplies advance the security of the united states, given china's close proximity, our free trade agreements and our close bilateral

relationship with a stable democracy, end quote. canada is more reliable and cost efficient source of energy than foreign ail we depend on from the mideast, africa and other regions of the world. for these reason, i rise in support of this rule and underlying legislation. the relevant committees of jurisdiction provided us with a bipartisan bill that will create american jobs, ensure energy independence, increase our national security and contribute to the lower gas prices. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman 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: i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. the northern route approval act. in the words of yogi behr remark it's deja vu all over again here in the house of

representatives. last week the house of representatives repealed the affordable care act for -- for the 37th time. this time for the eighth time in two and a half years we're voting yet again on a keystone pipeline measure that will never become law. the very decision to sign this law would lie with the same president upon whom the decision is currently waiting approval. therefore this is another waste of taxpayer time, taxpayer money, when we have pressing national issues we should be discuss, how to address our budget deficit, how do get our economy move, how to renew affordable college and low interest rates for students. there are so many issues that my constituents are crying out for. yet another symbolic issue that's nothing to do with whether the keystone pipeline is approved or not is the last thing we should be spending our time here on the floor of the people's house debating. rather than creating a bill

that's more viable, instead this bill by far is the worst iteration of the bill we've seen. worst of the eight. even my colleague who support construction of the 875-mile pipeline are having trouble supporting this bill because of its thinly veiled messaging that guts important laws and waives judicial review. in short, this northern route approval act is a regulatory earmark a specific earmark which this house of representatives has purported to eliminate. not only sit an earmark, but it's an earmark that's a far greater dollar value than those much maligned by member of both parties. at a time where we should be advancing on renewable energy policy, on an all of the above energy policy, this bill would by pass the very -- bypass the

very system this congress has set up under the law for consideration of a project this prompt has nothing to do with gas prices and the analysis from the department of state. there is absolutely no indication this would have anything to do with gas prices. this is for the global market. let's debate it for what it is. is it a favor to canada if we do it? absolutely. does it have environmental and health impact on americans? absolutely. let's look at the cost benefits this has nothing to do with lower gas prices. if wept to -- if we want to talk lower gas prices let's do it. let's raise fuel efficiency standards, let's look at alternative and public transportation, there's a lot of things we could be doing that would reduce gas prices. there's no analysis in the department of state's thorough vetting of this that this would have any impact on price at the pump.

this is five or 10 years from now exporting oil. there are other bills we could be talking about that would decrease gas prices. the public lands renewable energy act that would expand renewable energy development while protections -- protecting our nation's public health and environmental resources. because we expand renewable energy, it would apply downward pressure on gas prices. this bill is talking about a review process that's already under way, well under way, i might add for the keystone x.l. pipeline. congress itself set up the process by which each administration, and the country has the opportunity every four years to elect a president, congress set up the process each administration has

criteria to approve a process. if we don't like the criteria, let's review that. some members of congress won't like the outcome but we establish the ground rule theapsd executive branch is administering the law we created. rather than interrupting the state department's review process with this bill, we should allow the department to take the necessary time to address the impacts, concerns, costs and benefits of this controversial pipeline. although there's many issues that need to be better understood as part of the keystone x.l. process, it's critical that we address pipeline safety issues to make sure the tar sands count spill into our communities. that's not a republican or democratic issue, everyone wants to make sure america is safe, even if we do a major favor for canada. there's no indication that pipelines like keystone x.l. are more -- there are indications that this pipeline

could be more susceptible to oil spills because of the higher pressure that this type of pipeline uses compared to conventional crude. in fact, in the public comment periodmark americans expressed concern that a spill could impact their property value, their health, their safety, access to clean drinking water, and quality of life. these are the types of things the administration is rightfully weighing in determining the outcome. now while others argue that pipelines are the safest way to transport tar sands crude oil, the 150,000 oil spill in mayflower, arkansas, two months ago shows the inadequacies of some of our current pipeline safety regulations. i've heard arguments that the pipeline could create economic benefit. communs like mayflower won't see the benefits when their yards, homes and bies are buried in a thick layer of tar sands crude oil, threatening agriculture and local development. we should make sure that tar

sands developers adhere to pipeline safety standards that protect the health of americans and protect our economy and protect jobs to ensure that any project that goes forward doesn't destroy jobs rather than create them. to address pipeline safety issues, mr. tonko of new york's offered a commonsense amendment, he'll be here to speak about that, it would require the secretary of transportation to determine whether current pipeline regulations are sufficient to address safety concerns that are particular to transporting tar sands crude oil. unfortunately, however this rule, which i strongly oppose, as well as the underlying bill, does not allow for the discussion even the debate, about mr. tonko's amendment, which i think is a commonsense requirement. since this bill doesn't require the pipeline regulations requested by mr. tonko, i'm pleased that at least an amendment i offer with ms. chu of california and mr. connolly of virginia was made in order this amendment would require

the government accountability office to evaluate the true cost of a potential spill from the keystone x.l. pipeline in our community thesms g.a.o. study would look at the impact of tar sands spills on public health, the environment and the quality and quality of -- and the quantity and quality of water available for agriculture. it's inevitable that the keystone x.l. will have spills and leaks. these are not only costly to clean up and we need to know and understand those costs, but they take a toll on our communities. understanding the cost of spills is also important because the keystone pipeline is slated to go over the oglalla aquifer which lies beneath eight states and supplies drinking water to about two million americans and supplies 30% of the irrigation water for the nation's farmers. transcanada stated it will provide alternative water supplies to affected

communities if an oil spill impacts surface or groundwater but they promised to provide -- but their promise is not enough insurance for millions of americans who rely on the oglalla aquifer for drinking water and farming. we need more information about the potential impact and the range of impact that an oil spill would have on the oglalla aquifer. mr. speaker, my colleagues, even if my colleagues support the president, if he chooses to move forward with the keystone x.l. pipeline, there's many reasons not to vote for h.r. 3. rather than ensuring we have the proper protections in place , the northern route approval act mandates aprufle of the pipeline, it doesn't allow discussion of amendments like mr. tonko's, that were brought forward in good faith that at least deserve 10 minutes on the floor of the house when we're debating a bill that's never going to become law, won't be brought up in the senate and

goes to the very same president for his signature who is considering this project. the least we could do is spend 10 minutes debating mr. tonko's meaningful amendment, if we're spending time debating everything else that won't become law. i encourage a more open process here on the floor of the house and that we move forward on priorities that our constituents are calling upon congress to act upon. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. he gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. fleming: i rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. and you know, it's very interesting that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that more oil production doesn't affect the price of oil

or gasoline. well that's the same thing as saying that gravity doesn't exist and the earth is still flat. neither one of those are true. we all know that it's a marketplace, it's a commodity, and the more you produce, the lower the price. how well do i know that? in my own district in louisiana, we produced more natural gas than we can use and the price is so low we can hardly produce it because of the low reimbursement for the cost it is to do it. but that will come up over time. two cents a gallon in one day is how much gasoline prices have recently increased. seven cents a gallon just in the last week. it may not sound like much but the price of gas is going up once again. one headline says, quote, gas prices spike ahead of memorial day, end quote. and that's hitting just about every american in the wallet. and yet the president continues to play games with a project

that will carry an estimated 830 barrels of oil per day from canada to the gulf coast for processing. so what are we waiting for? more studies? this project has been studied to death. every state it would go through has already sent its approval. it's been 1,700 days since transcanada first applied to the state department for permission to build the keystone x.l. pipeline. transcanada says pipeline construction will create about 20,000 jobs. and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, why aren't we talking about jobs? 20,000 jobs. good-paying jobs. plus lower prices to the consumer. but though because ma administration -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. webster: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the secret has 30 seconds. mr. fleming: but the obama

administration state department has politicized this project and stalled it in order to kowtow to the far left environmental fringe. we need the jobs and we need the energy benefits. we need to lower cos for consumers and manufacturers. with that, i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: of course quantity affects price, economics 101. the disconnect here and the failure in the argument from the other side is this quantity is a rounding error in the global supply and the global demand. this has no impact on price. we're not talking about anything that actually moves the bar or reducing gas prices for consumers. with that, it's my honor to yield a minute to my colleague from michigan, mr. peters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. . mr. peters: i rise for my colleagues to